According to Dr. Rebecca Meisenbach, who interviewed over 15,000 "breadwinning" women for the study, "Working women who provide the majority of the household's income continue to articulate themselves as the ones who 'see' household messes and needs as a way to retain claim to an element of traditional female identity." [DailyMail]

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]

• After being passed over for a promotion at McDonald's because of her pregnancy, Rhonda Floyd started a support group of sorts to benefit women in the hospitality industry. "McDonald's is very male-dominated," she said, as are many businesses in the leisure and hospitality sector. • British cops recently caught three woman and a man who were trying to pimp six girls aged 14-23 at a West London hotel. They were also offering a 12-year-old virgin for up to £50,000. All four have been arrested and are facing criminal charges. • According to Nicola Pease, the very same laws designed to protect women in the workplace are actually holding us back. Pease says there is no more sexism in the finance sector, except that which the ladies bring upon themselves by having babies and demanding maternity leave and other unreasonable things. • Author and women's activist Malalai Joya on Obama: "He must criticize how the United States helped turn Afghanistan into a safe haven for fundamentalist terrorists and now helps prop up a corrupt regime and a powerful drug mafia... If I ever do have the chance to meet President Obama, I will try to convey to him these points and tell him very clearly that U.S governments have betrayed the Afghan people enough." • Ximena Hartstock is the acting director of D.C.'s Department of Parks and Recreation, but she may be forced out because of her race and gender. She claims that at a recent city council meeting, Councilmember Marion Barry raised questions as to whether Hartstock could relate to African Americans or if she could do the job as well as a man. •  Kim Ng may become the first female General Manager in baseball. She was spotted having lunch with Padres owner Jeff Moorad, and has previously interviewed for GM positions with the Dodgers and the Mariners. •  As part of a charity event a group of men from New York state put on some pumps and walked a mile in women's shoes. The money raised by the walk has been donated to Alternatives for Battered Women, which operates a shelter for victims of domestic violence. •  A television show/internet competition that has been described as a "cross between Sports Illustrated and Next Top Model" has come under attack from feminists, who think the bathing suit-based contest is sexist. • Researchers have found that new mothers spend 20% more time awake than they did before giving birth. The resulting "postnatal insomnia" can often lead to depression and anxiety problems for stressed parents. Doctors advise that women suffering from postnatal insomnia seek help as soon as possible. • Quinceañeras — lavish parties given by Latino families to celebrate a girl's 15th birthday and transition into womanhood — are gaining popularity in America. Michele Salcedo, author of a book on the practice, says, "It's a way to push back a lot of the negativity that a lot of Latinos feel is directed at Latinos. It is a way for people who have recently arrived, or maybe not so recently arrived, to say 'I have done well here.'" • In a speech at Morehead State University, author bell hooks said, "God is a feminist because if we accept that God is a god of love then we know that God fully intends for females and males to be self-actualized, self-empowered and full of self esteem." • Just one of many problems for working moms is the fact that many of them continue to see child care as coming out of their paycheck alone, not their family's overall income. Nora Bredes, director of the Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership, says, "Our belief as a society is that mothers are responsible for the care of children, not the couple. We give lip service on how it's a family priority, but it really is all on her." • Québec's fashion industry has adopted a charter to help promote healthy body image, including resolutions to "encourage healthy eating and weight-control habits" and "discourage excessive weight-control practices or appearance modification." • The success of New York police and prosecutors in using DNA to catch rapists in cold cases has lead to a greater push to use DNA evidence in the investigation of other crimes. "It is a tremendously powerful tool that allows us to protect the rights of victims," said California District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert. • 

The conceit of the show is that Julianna Margulies's character, Alicia, has been home with the kids for a long time, and when she goes back to work after her state's attorney husband is jailed in a sex scandal, she has to start from the bottom. That is, if "the bottom" were a junior associate position at a major law firm, arguing a murder case. Christine Baranski is always fun to watch, especially when paired with her very own villain-pet, as here. But in Diane, she's basically playing a working-world stereotype: the mean, successful woman who wants women under her to fail. Later in the episode, Will (seen in the clip appealingly tossing his baseball) tells her, "I've seen you mentor these women until they start competing with you," and so have we — in central casting.

The show does have some less predictable aspects. The law firm's investigator Kalinda (played by awesome Archie Punjabi) is that rare TV woman of color who is portrayed as a hottie, rather than a funny friend or background diversity. And while her cleavage-flashing gets a little old, she and Alicia do appear to be forging a mentoring relationship, though initially it's Alicia who's getting mentored. Less interesting is the suggestion that Alicia is good at her job because she understands what it's like to be a wronged woman. Her bonding with a potential female witness over Diet Coke is pretty tiresome, and in general Margulies is a lot more fun when she's getting angry than when she's being warm. Which is why it might be okay to watch her spar with Baranski, stereotypes be damned — that is, until they hug it out in the inevitable reconciliation episode.

The Good Wife [CBS]

The subhead of "Mr. Big Gets Downsized" reads: "What happens when the breadwinner is toast? Chris Noth plays Mr. Mom, while Milla Jovovich leaves him with the crumbs." And so begins a role-reversal-ish photo shoot, in which the man is left at home to watch the rugrats while the woman is all business. Just like in The Hangover, it's supposedly instant comedy to see a man with a baby, as though men never parent and are as comfortable with kids as they are with, say, fainting goats.

It's so strange that this story is tied to the recession, downsizing and the economy. What if this were a non-fiction photo essay about some laid-off Bank Of America exec, and the poor dad looked as swamped as he does and that mom looked as distracted as she does and that little girl looked as sad as she does? Would you be like, wow, nice skirt, how much is that? Well, it's $695. Okay?

Don't get me wrong: Milla looks fierce. She is clearly taking calls about killing zombies and is saying stuff like, "I'm overbooked, but I can squeeze you in."

And what's this? Is the downsized dad flirting? Or just getting pre-school tips? And while it's great that Milla's training her mini-me to be a future CEO, shouldn't someone see what that little boy is crying about?

How many movies or TV shows have you seen where the dad makes a big stink (heh) about changing diapers?

Here's the thing: If this photoshoot were running, say, during the time when Mad Men is set — as a true, controversial role-reversal, then it would be one thing. But right now, when people are actually out of work; when women do struggle to balance career and kids — it's hard to decide if it's playful and funny or dark and depressing to see a distracted, possibly neglectful mom and a drowning, overwhelmed dad. Then again, maybe we're not meant to look too deeply into the set up. It's just a fashion shoot, right? This story is followed by an article on "investment pieces," featuring $10,300 handbags and $1,090 shoes. Priorities!

Earlier: So Bazaar: Are High-Fashion Magazines Turning Into Low-Rent Tabloids?

Prominent Feminist Explains Why Angelina Jolie Is Best Thing, Ever

I was picking up a 10-year-old girl — for whom I'd been babysitting for a while — from school, but I'd forgotten my wallet. Her school — and her home — were in my neighborhood, so when she came bounding out of the school, I told her that instead of going straight to her house we were going to stop at my place first. She'd never been to my house, but she said, "sure," but then asked: "Is it one of those buildings where people are hanging out of the windows going 'yo yo yo'?" Hmm. I guess this was a valid question, in a way. But it still stung; basically this little white girl wanted to know if I, a black woman, was taking her to the ghetto. I'd taken her to the park, and to piano lessons, and I assumed that she trusted me — and to some extent, she did — but she was also surprised to find out that my mom's building had a marble lobby and a doorman (hers had neither) and that a pal in her class lived on the floor above us. But I think I was hurt because as odd as it seems, I thought we were friends. And you don't ask friends stuff like that. But her question reminded me of my "place."

This memory was triggered by reading about Just Like Family, a new book by Tasha Blaine, which explores the role of nannies, the people paid to become part of a family.

"I've heard nannies say a lot that you have to love the children like they're your own, but at the end of the day you have to know they really aren't. You are like family, but you are an employee," Blaine tells Salon. For the book, Blaine — who has worked briefly as a nanny — interviewed over 100 nannies, and found that that they fall into two camps: The "career" nannies, and the "amateurs."

Blaine focused on three women: Claudia, an immigrant from Dominica who has left a son behind to work in the New York but faces eviction while watching someone else's two small children all day; Vivian, an American-born, college-educated nanny who works with the International Nanny Association; and Kim, a live-in in Texas going through a divorce and forcing herself to accept that she may never have kids of her own.

Of course, in the book, there are the stories about how, though families welcome these women into their homes, line between what is and what is not appropriate is blurred. for example: One day, Claudia tries to figure out if her employer will be working from home the next day so she can plan a schedule for the children, and she "gingerly" goes to his desk and flips through his calendar. As noted in this New York Times piece, "Unspoken, but implied: She can be present for blowout fights, wash their dirty laundry, and help raise their children, but she can't look at a calendar?" Then there's the time Kim is invited to a baby naming event on her day off — and discovers she's expected to set up all the food, carrying heavy platters up flights of stairs, because she is the help. It's like, just when you think you're something more, you're forced to remember you're something less.

But most interesting is the fact that generally, these are working women working for working women. Says Blaine: "They are women who are often navigating the same issues as the women who hired them. There are class and often race differences, to be sure. But Claudia and her boss are both working mothers." As for why people look down on nannies, Blaine offers, "I think it comes right along with our society undervaluing what it takes to raise children."

And, at this point, Blaine doesn't think she would hire a nanny, even if she could afford to: "I don't know if I'd be very good at navigating that relationship. Part of the problem was, having done my book, I would start talking with them and instinctively wind up getting their life stories. So then I would have the guilt. And I would want to be their friend. And I knew that if I thought they were doing something wrong I would probably not bring it up as well as I should. Day care was a better fit for me."

The Secret Lives Of Nannies [Salon]
How Do Nannies Manage? Gingerly [NY Times]

First, let's look through Mademoiselle from May of 1961.

One cover line boasts a full 38 pages of clothes for, amongst other things, "job-goers," "plaid-faddists," and "...other summer people." Did they run out of other ways to label people based on things they wear/do that are somewhat related to the summer months? How can their creativity be so limited when they can boast so many pages of editorial fashion?

Oh, but look what we found a few pages in:

A dreamy Maidenform ad!

We found one editorial about Southern college girls' dances (or whatever), in which a young Southern Belle had super-realistic aspirations!

Ah, so your choices are getting married or becoming a model? Wow, what a charmed life you lead. And this was before models were expected to maintain a BMI of 14 or lower. This girl is pretty much on an express train to Betty Draper town.

Speaking of Betty:

Here she is in a fashion spread!

Oh, and look who else we found:

Our favorite little former-secretary, current junior copywriter on Madison Avenue! Right next to the ads for the illustrious Barbizon modeling school.

Well, the rest of the magazine is pretty much just ads for lipstick and spoons (Seriously, WTF is up with the ads for spoons in old magazines?) but we were able to find this little gem of an ad:

It is nice to see an ad for women traveling alone (even if they are mostly surrounded by square-jawed men) and it is also nice to remember that at one point in time women with low-paying jobs could afford to take trips to the Caribbean. Those days are pretty much gone thanks to rising fuel prices and a horrible economy.

Moving on, we found an old issue of Charm from July of 1951. It may be a decade before Mad Men takes place, but the magazine can give us some insight to the working women of that era.

This handy little editorial talked about the most important part of a working woman's day—getting dressed—and also ran some numbers about women in the workforce. The biggest group was, naturally, the "office workers:"

The "office worker" category should not be limited to secretaries, however, as one woman proves that they also include the magazine's editorial assistants in the realm of "office work."

Aw, how cute, she isn't going to be the boss of anyone! And, again, the goal is marriage, marriage, marriage! You know, lest you think she is a spinster or, even worse, a lesbian!

The magazine does discuss high-powered women too (after teachers and nurses):

That's kind of a large number of women, isn't it? Maybe the mid-century workplace wasn't as packed-full of hostile males as our beloved Mad Men wants us to believe. But then again, these are un-citied, un-verified stats that were probably pulled out of some writer's ass when pressed to make catchy headlines for her story.

Here are some things that you don't see that often in Mad Men, or even in contemporary women's magazines:

Wow, "Married or single, her life is full and satisfying"? Even in 2008 women are taught by magazines that we are never going to Have It All and lead a satisfying life no matter what decisions we make. Well, we guess that "already satisfying life" doesn't really sell perfume and shoes (and spoons!) that well.

By the way, here is the woman who was featured as the real-life "lady executive" (and fashionably behatted vagina-owning boss-woman) Eleanor W. Howard:

We tried to dig up some more info on her but all we could find out is that she used to work in advertising and is in charge of "advertising, publicity, and fashion coordination" at Miron Mills, Inc. when this picture was taken. Perhaps advertising wasn't as male-dominated as Mad Men would like us to believe, huh?

Oh well, it is just a television show.

But! There's a silver lining, as most Brits no longer believe that it's the man's job to work and the woman's job to raise wee ones — only 31.1% of women and 41.1% of men believe in this old-fashioned notion, down from 59.2% of women and 65.5% of men in 1984. "It is conceivable that opinions are shifting as the shine of the 'super-mum' syndrome wears off, and the idea of women juggling high-powered careers while also baking cookies and reading bedtime stories is increasingly seen to be unrealisable by ordinary mortals," says Cambridge sociologist Jacqueline Scott.

Really Jacqui?? Are we still pretending that this "super-mum" was ever anything but a fantasy meant to make women feel guilty if they weren't perfect? I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: parenting takes compromise, and children miss out if a father is never, ever home just as they suffer if a mother is never home. Every individual makes the choices he or she believes is best for their family — however — it does make me wonder why this shift has occurred. As it has been noted, there's been somewhat of a renewed backlash against feminism since the riot grrrl-friendly 90s, and certainly there has been a glorification of motherhood, with every celebrity baby bump receiving hysterical coverage on the internet and in magazines.

Speaking of the glorification of past ideals, there was an article in CNN yesterday about the "growing trend" of stay-at-home wives without children. First of all, the statistics they gave on this "trend" were vague at best, so I'm going to have to assume that it was manufactured by an editor who realized it was August and that he was going to have to come up with something to write about in this molasses-slow news month. Anyway, CNN dug up some boring-ass ladies who fill their days doing laundry, charity work, and "creative writing." Apparently, they are less stressed out than when they worked! Imagine that! Doing yoga all day and a few errands is less stressful than a full time job!

Anyway, I'm less irked by these women than by the attitude above that women working outside the home is harmful to children. There are many, many, different kinds of full time jobs, and it's terrifyingly reductive of people to think that working moms are anathema to healthy kidlets.

[Image via Harvard Gazette]

'Support For Working Mums Falls' [BBC]
No Kids, No Jobs For Growing Number Of Wives [CNN]

[US News]

The Journal breaks pregnant women's rights down thusly: Employers can fire, lay off and refuse to hire knocked up ladies, but they have to provide ample proof that they held men to the same standards. They also have to provide maternity leave, as they would provide leave for any other medical issue, but in 48 of the 50 states, that leave doesn't have to be paid (readers in California and Washington State, you're the lucky ones).

And then, many women have to deal with blowhard employers like Sir Alan Sugar, the CEO-star of the British version of the Apprentice, who told the Times of London that, "Companies have no divine duty to help with childcare. Companies employ people. It's the Government's responsibility to provide childcare. You pay a person a salary and they cut their cloth accordingly." Sugar also added that female bosses are more likely to discriminate against female employees, because they are "more ruthless than men. They are more conscious of not employing other women because they feel they're not going to get the value of work out of them."

In Linda Hirshman's infamous American Prospect article about the "opt-out revolution," she suggests that if women want real equality, they must major in (mostly non-liberal arts) subjects that prepare them for the job market , make money, as money is "the marker of success in a market economy," and marry a man with bleak economic prospects, as he will be more likely to stay home with the babies. It's not that I don't agree with Hirshman — I think she's pretty much on the money — but I personally don't want to do any of those things, even though I acknowledge that I'm not helping feminism by being an English major who works in a low-rent field. Many self-proclaimed feminists feel the same way, so would it be more useful to organize and change the pregnancy laws instead of berating ourselves for making the choices that Silda, and so many of the rest of us, might one day make?

Why Stand By? [New York Magazine]
More Women Pursue Claims Of Pregnancy Discrimination [WSJ]
Women Bosses Are More Likely To Discriminate Against Mothers, Says Sir Alan Sugar [Times of London]

Anyway, psychologist Ellen Klosson says, "Women have been aware of the time pressure to establish themselves in a career before starting a family, because of the difficulty of starting this task in their thirties and forties. I think what we are seeing in this study is the solidification of this trend." Yeah, no shit. But isn't it interesting to think — that despite the Kardashians, Paris Hilton and Bratz — a young generation of girls don't see their boyfriends as the only thing in their futures?

Young Women Choosing Careers Over Love [CNN]