Transcript of There’s An Eruption in My Living Room! Care Economy, Part 2

Cathy: Welcome to Parity, a podcast for everyone ready for a workplace of true gender parity with equal numbers of women and men at all levels of organizations including the coveted top positions. Women have had the right to vote for 100 years, but experts believe that we will not achieve workplace parity for another 135 years! 135 years is a long time, friends, to wait for equality. The goal of this podcast is to accelerate this change by being a coach, mentor, and trusted friend for all of you who are ready now.

I’m Cathy Nestrick. Waiting for 135 years until we achieve workplace parity is not ok with me, and that is why I was motivated to start this Podcast with my good friend Deborah. 

Deborah: I am your co-host Deborah Pollack-Milgate. I am committed to a workplace where everyone can thrive. Listeners, this is part 2 of a 2-part series focused on a critical barrier standing in the way of parity, namely, the fact that women are so disproportionately responsible for the caring of others and that we lack the support system to be both caregivers and breadwinners.

Cathy: Listeners, just as in part 1, Dr. Nithila Peter will be joining us for today’s discussion. For our regular listeners, you know that Dr. Peter is a frequent contributor and she joined us in Season 1 to explore emotional intelligence and how EI is a necessary ingredient for our goal to achieve gender parity. Nithila, welcome to the show.

Nithila: Hello dear parity lamplighters - Cathy and Deborah.   So glad to be right here with you to continue our crackling discussion about the mop up - the lava and the magma flowing out of the erupting volcano.  So let’s explore some more the fissures in the  backbone of our market economy, the “ care economy” -  and our proposed solutions.

Deborah: Yes, listeners, it is so important to us to bring you solutions- even when we know that these solutions aren’t easy. In part 1, we discussed that we haven’t implemented the right - or actually any - support system to enable people to be both caregivers and breadwinners. Certainly, there are many working parents, but the pandemic showed us that working parents were on the brink of collapse and many in fact did collapse by leaving the workforce in droves when the pandemic hit. Many men have returned to the workforce, but large numbers of women have not.

Cathy: Listeners, in part 1 we discussed that there are many fissures that led to the eruption we experienced during the pandemic and that are still subject to further eruption. We focused on:

-society places a low value on caregiving

-when women transitioned from stay-at-home to entering the workforce, no support systems were put in place

-modern feminism forgot about mothers so there is little conversation about how to be both a caregiver and a breadwinner.

You can tune into part 1 to learn our solutions to and I’ll drop a link to that episode in the show notes.

Nithila: Today, listeners, we will focus on 3 additional fissures in the care economy and offer solutions. The first fissure I would like to talk about today is the bias that mothers face.   According to studies by Bright Horizon, 40% of our co-workers think that mothers are less committed to work after having children. 

Deborah: I find this question of whether we are committed extraordinarily annoying - because I may be 100% committed but struggling to find time to take a shower as a new parent. So if I skip a beat, it may have nothing to do with being “committed.” It's the wrong word - a better word would be over capacity. And we know this data point has negative consequences for women. Because people think we’re less committed, we’re often passed over for promotions and coveted assignments or given an all or nothing “choice” that wasn’t realistic. And let me be honest - I could do no more than tread water for several years at work because I quite literally could not do it all. 

Cathy: This lack of support also plays out in the wage gap. Mothers earn 69 cents for every $1 earned by men. On average, this means that mothers make $18,000 less than men each year. And these trends are global - this isn't just a US problem, this is a worldwide problem. Globally, women earn less than men and globally, mothers earn less than women who don’t have children. That, my friends, is a strong incentive to not have children.

Deborah: And yet many of us did. Listeners, this is the motherhood penalty that we’ve talked about many times. This phenomenon of mothers earning less is so well documented that it’s widely coined the motherhood penalty. Want to have kids? Fine, but you’re going to be penalized - if you’re a woman. Men on the other hand are rewarded. It was a surprise to me that Studies show that when men become fathers, they are viewed as more mature and responsible, and their standing within their organizations actually increases - including in some cases, their salaries. Did either of you knowingly experience the motherhood penalty when you had children?

Cathy: Yes, after my second child was born, I couldn’t keep all the balls in the air. I was a partner in a law firm at the time and I approached the leadership team and told them I need to make a change. They were willing to work with me but the bottom line is that I began earning less money.

Nithila: I did in so many ways. I had to yank up my creativity, and be continually resourceful to figure out how to manage. Also, I acquired skill sets I never knew I could learn and discovered several I didn’t know I had. The way I handled it is that I pretended to be a parent of triplets, my twins and my work.  I only did this, because in parenting, I discovered “myself” better,  and my work depends on self-knowledge - so in my case this continues to be helpful - I know many of my friends say they lose themselves when they parent, and that is so valid too - it is their subjective truth - and I sympathize with how overwhelming the work of being a parent has been for all of us. Yet sustaining my life-work or work-life has not been free of risk, and has often imperiled my health.   

Deborah: It was the same for me. I often wonder if I have taken off years of my life trying to keep up with it all.

Cathy: So you have both described the physical and mental toll of trying to do it all. On top of that we have bias. What are the solutions to a culture where mothers face bias? This bias against mothers is a global phenomenon, but Nithila, I wonder if there is something in Indian culture that we could borrow to help solve this problem? 

Nithila: Cathy, you are right, India places a high value on motherhood.  I’ve known  Latin, Italian, Indigenous  communities also give motherhood  tremendous respect.  If she gains a reputation for being a terrific mother, then her position and stature in society gains in both autonomy and influence. Once the mother is valued, then she becomes the Queen of a network of support and resources.  And her daughters and nieces etc. can lean in on this network of support to sustain and build new families.

Deborah: I would like to be the Queen of something! Nithila, I know that your twins travel to India each summer to stay with family. Who cares for them and how does that work?

Nithila: Yes I did those travels to India and back. Indian culture has prioritized “it takes a village” support system for the young mother.   So I went to India when the twins were around 3 months old, and I spent 6 months there working on my PhD with my family network giving me tremendous support to care for the twins. I then returned to the US for 6 mos. We used this flexible schedule so that I could complete my PhD  for the first 4 to 5 years of their lives.  My Professors at USC were deeply supportive, so my writing work with them continued uninterrupted.  In my case, after I had the girls, I was far more creative with my work, than I had been before they were delivered.  So being a parent to my girls changed my creativity and other abilities, dramatically. This approach is different than what I have seen in the U.S. 

Cathy: What a tremendous opportunity for your entire family. Your twins grew up knowing 2 very different cultures, and the experience enabled you to continue with your work outside of the home. Nithila,you have also talked about the unique way that President and First Lady Obama handled the raising of their daughters while living at the White House. Do you see similarities between their approach and your experience with Indian culture?

Nithila: As we all saw, Michelle Obama’s mother actually moved to the White House to help with caregiving. You can see the respect that the Obamas had for her because they named the East Wing Replica of the White House at the Obama Center in Chicago, the Marian Robinson Center, for the invisible hours of labor that Michelle’s mother gave to support the family while in D.C. The respect that the Obama’s showed Marian Robinson for her caregiving work is very much like the respect that caregivers enjoy in India. This gives me hope that the tides could turn in the US and that caregiving will be viewed with more esteem and prestige. Cathy and Deborah, what are your thoughts? Can this approach be replicated in the US?

Cathy: I have long been an admirer of the Asian ways of caring for family members. Even in the US, when my Asian friends had babies or needed help, I would watch as extended family members would move in with them to help bridge that gap. I don’t know if grandchildren are in my future, but my plan is to replicate this tradition offering that level of support if, of course, my children want that. I know that I would have been so much better off if I had received that level of support when I was trying to be a caregiver and a breadwinner. At the same time, I recognize that this approach isn’t possible or even wanted by all families. 

Deborah: I think this will be a hard model to adopt so long as families are as stretched as they are economically. To make space for us to tune into the care economy, we have to have economic security. So many grandparents are still struggling themselves - the US is a rich country but its poverty rate for the elderly (and overall) is higher than for many other western countries. When we are all struggling so much, it makes it difficult for us to make space for others, or to participate in the care economy. I do wonder, also, in the model you describe Nithila, whether this elevation of a woman at home translates into benefits or flexibility in the workplace.

Nithila: I’ve noticed that if a mother makes her parenting dimension visible, then she is spoken to and given work with an awareness of her additional responsibilities and skills.  For instance in Asia, actors who are mothers - are highly regarded for their more expanded range of emotions, roles are written that challenge her on that dimension, in compelling ways. Then of course India had among the earliest female Prime Minister’s in the world - Priyadarshini Indira Gandhi in the 1960’s, Indira’s leadership during the war liberating Bangladesh from West Pakistan (early 1970’s)  is one of her best achievements.  She has been a great war time leader, and equally known as a devoted parent and grandparent to her sons.  Her caregiving and breadwinning dimensions have been historically relevant, to the perspectives Indians have of her leadership.

Cathy: The next fissure, listeners, is that Roe v. Wade has been overturned taking away a woman’s choice about whether and when to be a mother in the case of an unintended or problematic pregnancy. Regardless of your political leanings, this decision is another fissure because it will increase the burden on the care economy

Deborah: It is not clear that the result is fewer abortions overall based on the data, but the Roe v. Wade conversation is one we need to have and in my opinion have needed to have for a long time because regardless of where you are on the issue - we know having babies is a profound experience and responsibility. I just read an article about a young woman with twins who decided to have them after Texas made abortions impossible after 6 weeks. The decision was actually made for her. What we don’t know is whether she has any support for the caring of these children.

And I have to say I am absolutely appalled by the health consequences we have seen so far as a result of the Dobbs decision. The fact that a lack of clarity in the law would lead to dire health consequences for women was NOT rocket science - and the ill-preparedness is inexcusable.

Nithila: So let’s talk about the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade on parity - the biggest impact for me, is the loss of autonomy or the loss of power.  If her decision making ability is so drastically questioned, then women may find their autonomy in decision making more endangered in society overall.  Losing conviction about our decision making power, is needless to say a disaster for emotional intelligence.  Our decisions are the field of action, where the world gets to read the quality and depth of our emotional intelligence.  If our decisions don’t matter, and others will decide for us - then society is condemning us to a second class fate. 

Cathy: Additionally, there is the impact on achieving gender parity. Before COVID, experts believed that we would achieve gender parity in 100 years, and now, those some experts have extended the timeframe to 135 years. With the new abortion restrictions, will our time to achieve gender partiy be extended even further? Deborah, what do you think?

Deborah: This is an interesting question. I do think that if the result is more children born into circumstances that are not ideal, we are asking for trouble because - we know the care economy already erupted during the pandemic, and that we don’t have a system to bear the responsibility.  

I tried looking at abortion laws to see  whether I could find a correlation between workplace parity and more generous abortion laws.You might think if there was a correlation between liberal laws and women’s parity that we could predict the impact in the US. But I wasn’t able to see a correlation immediately. The world economic forum lists Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Namibia, Rwanda, Lithuania, Ireland, and Switzerland as being the best for gender equality. But these countries have a wide variety of abortion laws, ranging from near total bans to very liberal laws, depending on gestation.

I think this suggests there are other policy measures or social structures that come into play and that we may see a worsening of parity because we don’t have sufficient support structures. I can say that the 18 year-old woman with twins could really use more support. This shows how it is one thing to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion and then another entirely to offer a support system.

Nithila: I couldn’t agree more - and the planning was so important in my case. I was able to access my village of Asian elders because my children were planned. The people I needed to help me, could only be mobilized transcontinentally with advanced notice. If a woman is given no choice, she is being forced to have a child and her support structures too are being forced. From an EI perspective,  this will make some human beings resentful and the process of genuine “care” will be in short supply.  It is a bad recipe for the care-economy.

Cathy: The solutions for this crack are tricky. We can call on lawmakers to enact the laws that we support in this area. Beyond that, I think our focus should be on bolstering the overall care economy with reforms similar to Iceland - longer maternity leave, paternity leave that is not only offered but we expect men to take, and government subsidized child care so that care is plentiful and affordable. What else can we do?

Deborah: We need to ensure that family planning takes center stage - fight for societal support structures for young families because we know that having a family is a financial strain and a resource strain. And we don’t generally have children at the age where our financial situation is optimal. So we need to call on all of our systems to pitch in - the workplace, the government, our families. So far, its been families trying to manage on their own.

Deborah: The final fissure in care economy is that we are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. Organizations were created at a time when men were the breadwinners and women were the caregivers - at least most of the time. Working 9 to 5, and let’s be honest, it’s usually more like 9 to 7 in a building far away from where our children are is not workable for many women. Certainly there are exceptions - the woman with a husband who steps up and shares the caregiving or the woman earning enough money that she can buy the caregiving her children need. But way too many women are unable to keep up. Again - our exhibit 1 is the number of women who exited the work force at the height of the pandemic because things had truly boiled over for them.

Cathy: And every time a woman’s career and caregiving responsibilities boil over, the family suffers along with her. These families have a caregiver who is burned out or a caregiver who can no longer be a breadwinner because she can’t make it work, so they lose out on her income. And if that happened to me, I would be pretty grumpy if not outright depressed about my situation. So what are the solutions?

Deborah: Many organizations began offering flex or hybrid work during the pandemic, but they are beginning to think twice about keeping them in place. According to a recently leaked message from Elon Musk to his workforce, he is demanding that all employees return to work and if they don’t, they won’t have a job. He went so far as to insinuate that employees who are not in the office are not working - which seems disrespectful to me as a professional. To me, this highlights the problem of having too few people in leadership roles who are caregivers or who understand the importance of the work.

Nithila: As someone who has been paying close attention, I’ve not heard reports of nerdy billionaires developing skills for better care giving from their wives or children. Interviews with some of the high profile former wives reveal the inability of these powerful men to have compassion or empathize. The flexible schedule is infinitely better for women and men who take on the load of care-giving.  

But I also listened to many stories where men and women are upset with their partners for not being care-givers.  So this led to other kinds of eruptions in the home, during the pandemic - families broke apart which created additional strain.  If two people find it challenging for both to be caregivers and breadwinners, how will they do so when living apart?

I also have learnt that caregiving is even more challenging for those for whom empathy or service to others is difficult. Many also find it hard to give their full attention to another person.  Pointed, attentive care for another, disregarding one’s own needs - is an art and a science and without a genuine willingness to learn, will not automatically happen.

Cathy: I agree with everyone you said Nithila. Your point underscores that not all human beings have innate caregiving skills, but I do believe that we all have equal abilities to learn and grow these skills.

And back to the Elon Musk’s of the world,  I would add that from a business perspective, we learned that we can operate many aspects of business from our homes. During COVID, there were new demands on the business community, we had supply chain issues, we had new regulatory hurdles. But we figured out how to get it done from home. So offering flex and hybrid work can be done. And in fact, there’s a good argument that giving employees the freedom to work from home actually improves the bottom line.

Deborah: One other solution is to focus efforts on changing organizational culture so that it works for all employees, caregivers included. Listeners, we have an entire episode outlining the signposts to a good culture and these tips can also help caregivers find an organization that supports the care economy. Employers, this episode can help. We will drop a link in the show notes for that episode. 

Cathy: Listeners, that’s a wrap for today’s episode. To recap, we talked about the motherhood penalty, which can manifest itself in bias as well as financially, the impact of Roe v Wade on the care economy, as well as the square peg in the round hole problem - all of these issues are bubbling under the surface waiting to erupt.

Deborah: And we talked about solutions - the need to increase awareness of the care economy at all levels, to have people in power who understood the importance of it, the need for additional resources to support families as we figure out what states are going to do in a post-Roe world, and in a demanding work world.

Cathy: Nithila, as always, it is such a treat to work with you. Thank you for joining us today and for your ongoing contributions supporting Parity.

Nithila: These fissures and eruptions have been spilling all around us - and we have been mopping up and continuing our work.  I do hope each of you listening in, feel heard and I truly wish to continue this conversation - on how we might best support the backbone of our market economy.

Deborah: Nithila, thank you so much for joining us. Listeners, please know that we are here to help you. Tune in while you are taking some much needed time for yourself at the beach, by a pool, or on your couch. As a reminder we have time-stamped show notes. You can find links to resources that we mentioned in today’s episodes, as well as links to find us on social media and our webpage.

Cathy:  Thank you for supporting the Parity Podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, then please:

1. Rate and review us on Apple and Spotify; and

2. Give us a shout-out on social media and with your friends

With your help, we are building the perfect community for our ongoing discussions. We hope to connect with you again soon so that we can make progress with the Parity Prescription!