It's OK not to love your job

Regular Feature: Hated the Article, Should I Read the Book? #1

In this section I pick a lucky author of a New York Times “Sunday Review” piece and tell them what they got wrong. You’re welcome.

First entry, “What Women Get From Work” by Jill Flipovic, adapted from “The H Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” This is an excellent one for me to start with, because not only can I mansplain, I can also classplain (Is that a thing? Will be when I’m done, watch.)

The thesis is that pressures on mothers to stop working and stay home for their kids, deprives women of happiness that would come from working. No doubt, totally agree (see, I told you this would involve mansplaining). But what kind of happiness are we talking about forgoing here? Flipovic tells the story of her grandmother who worked a series of “pay the rent” jobs to care for her family. She describes the pride her grandmother had in providing for her family: The sense of accomplishment (and freedom) that came from earning a living. But the jobs her grandmother had kind of sucked (and if they didn’t suck in the 1950’s, they do now; waitress, part-time factory work,…). The 2^nd page headline of the story is “Are Women Allowed to Love Their Jobs?” It’s not about allowed, there’s just not much to love about lots of jobs.

Who is the audience for this essay? People who read the New York Times, duh. (Here comes the classplaining part.) Women who are choosing to take a pause from work and stay home for their kids are, presumably, not making that decision if it will beggar their children. The choice here is about having a fulfilling, serious, career, not about paying the rent. There are lots of Sheryl Sandbergs who can aspire to really great vocations, but there are way more people for whom work is a kind of necessary evil. Not really, hopefully, evil. People should expect to like their jobs (nice co-workers, interesting challenges, getting out of the house, etc.).  But there are a lot of people, and a lot of jobs, that are all about the money. If you asked someone, “Would you do this for free?” or “Would you do this if you didn’t need the money?” the answer will often (rightly, properly) be, “No way.” Another feature of many jobs is that nobody would think of putting the job ahead of their family. My career as a waiter may be damaged by taking a few years to raise my kids?

Shouldn’t the point really be that we want to make it easier for people to care for their families without risking the loss of a job (or the ability to get a job in the future)? Paid family leave, job retraining for those re-entering the workforce, whatever. People should have the fulfillment that comes with having a family (a life) and the fulfillment that comes from providing for that family (life). And absolutely, everyone should have the opportunity to have a fulfilling career, a vocation. But let me say this (from back on my side of the class and gender divide): I have the most amazing fulfilling avocationy vocation it is possible to have. I would do most of my job for free (shh). But it is really important that it also pays the bills. One thing I like about my job is that it’s a good way to earn a living. But the other really amazing thing about my job is that it let me have the kind family life that I truly value. I got to care for and provide for my family. And if doing that had cost me the chance to have a rewarding career, well I hope I’d think two out of three isn’t bad.

This post was delayed awhile because I wanted to ask some actual women what they thought(!). An ad hoc editorial board of my wife, elder daughter, and long-time family friend reviewed this piece. My wife and my daughter were not thrilled by it: The family friend thought it was OK. While Emma and Maria are two of the people I love and respect most in this world, I’m going to listen to the friend on this one, because she agrees with me (at least in a very non-committal “OK” way. The referee reports were brief).  Emma’s main objection is that the author is writing for a selected audience of Times readers and probably acknowledges in the book that her argument only applies to people with good career options. 

First of all, Emma, with that kind of mature and reasonable attitude, you will never become a popular and disrespected blogger. Second, that may be the argument in the book, but it is not the argument in the essay. Her grandmother was not climbing the corporate ladder.

Emma’s argument brings up an important point: If I really want to know what the author is arguing, I should read the book. There is a fatal flaw to this logic, however: I don’t want to read the book. The implied answer to the question, “Hated the Article, Should I Read the Book?” is, “No, don’t read it.” If the actual answer is going to be, “Yes. You should figure out why a smart and well-intentioned person would write such a piece.” Then I am going to have to stop this regular feature after one post.