Women, men, careers and choices

I wonder about the consequences of certain behaviors—what they lead to and how they change people. I was talking to a good friend yesterday about careers and career progression, and we were exchanging war stories from our respective workplaces. It struck me that she is experiencing now some of what I experienced about ten years ago. In my case, those experiences led to a significant change in how I viewed workplace leadership, careers in general, my career, and career progression. I have come full circle when it comes to careers; I started my work life with real gusto. I wanted a career and went after it. That’s no different than what many younger women experience these days, just that at the time I did it (the late 1970s/early 1980s), it was still considered a ‘big thing’ to want a long-term career if you were a woman. I remember Ms. magazine and how it promoted women’s value in the workplace and the importance of a career in women’s lives. Feminism promoted the idea of women having a choice; they could choose the home or the workplace, or both. The latter proved to be quite difficult when I was young, because it wasn’t easy to give your all to the workplace and then at home with a family and children. Most of the women I knew at that time (in the USA) solved that dilemma in different ways; some were wealthy enough to hire nannies to care for their children, while others placed them in private daycare. Others worked part-time and gave up the idea of having a full-time career. They had a job that helped pay the bills but which gave them the opportunity to be with their children more. All of them acknowledged that it was not possible to be a full-time employee and a full-time mother, and whether they felt guilt about that was not the issue. They acknowledged that something had to give, and sometimes it was their taking care of their own children that was sacrificed for their career. I don’t know how most of them feel about that decision at this point in their lives (most are in their early 60s). The few women I know who have truly reached the top were and still are dynamos whose children respect them for the fact that they broke through the barriers that had hindered women. But again, those women had full-time help in the form of nannies or parents who were available to help them raise their children.

Sometimes now I look at the younger women I know, who have so many more choices than we ever did, and I don’t see their lives as easier than ours. I rather see them as much more difficult. Even here in Norway, where equality between the sexes has come a long way, there is still grumbling and dissatisfaction with the way things have worked out for women. Why? Men are expected to do more at home and to contribute equally to childcare and housework. But most of the polls show that women are still doing most of the housework and taking care of many aspects of childcare that men don’t seem to or want to manage. I have no firm opinion about it; I am merely an observer and a listener. I know many younger women who live alone and have no desire to have children, while others have married later and had children later in order to give themselves the opportunity to build a career. What I hear from many younger women who work full-time is that they miss not being with their children when they are working; they wish they could spend more time with them. Their consciences bother them a lot. I think it’s an instinct in women to want to be with their children; perhaps an instinct that men have as well. When children arrive, life takes on a different character. The future of their children becomes important, more important than their own lives. That’s the way of nature, a way of ensuring the survival of future generations. There is not enough time in life to do everything wholeheartedly. We cannot have it all—the perfect job, the perfect home life, the perfect social life. None of them exist. Guilt simply makes life more stressful. I am not saying we can eradicate guilt; I don’t believe we can nor should we. But there is a happy medium. There is a way of living life that does not require a person (woman or man) to sacrifice her or his all on the altar of the workplace, only to go home completely sapped for energy and willingness to take part in family life. I think it is wrong of workplaces to expect that, and yet, that is the definition of the modern workplace—more efficient, more productive, always can be better, always can top last month’s or last year’s sales—in other words, never good enough. Striving for more—more power, more prestige, and more money--continually. That is the nature of the workplace and perhaps the nature of human beings. But it does not lead to happiness, real happiness. It does not lead to any sort of internal peace, it ignores the needs of the soul and the heart. Because in the midst of the striving, the questions come. What am I doing this for? Why am I doing this? What’s the goal? Why am I sacrificing my family life for a job that will spit me out when the time comes to cut budgets and personnel? Why do we willingly sign our lives over to a corporation that cares nothing about us in the long run? Why do we do it? We have to start asking the tough questions. If we do, there is hope for change.

My career is nearing its natural end. I never had my own children, but I think if I had had them, I would have wanted to spend time with them. I say that however from the perspective of now. I really don’t know what it would have been like to have tried to balance children and a career. Of course I would have had help from my husband, but still, I think it would have been stressful. He and I have careers that are not 9 to 5, and they still demand a level of engagement that we cannot give them anymore. I want much more free time to pursue my hobbies and other activities. I don’t regret my choice of career or the financial and intellectual independence it gave me, but I can see why women and men choose not to pursue a career. It comes down to listening to yourself, to your heart and soul. If you know you don’t want to devote your life to a career and that you would rather stay at home with your children or work part-time in order to spend more time with them, then that should be a choice that society respects and rewards both women and men for. Such a choice is no longer ridiculed, but it remains difficult for many couples to make it work. Social trends and our culture have created the need for materialistic lifestyles that require that couples work full-time in order to make them possible. Something has to give. Some couples are choosing simpler lives—making do with less, moving from cities, working for smaller companies, starting their own companies, working for companies that allow them to work at home—all those things. I hope that society moves in that direction—toward smaller rather than larger, and toward less materialistic rather than more. I hope too that the right to personal choice, to following one’s heart, and to wanting peace of soul count for more in the years to come.   

Education and Indoctrination---what Doris Lessing thought about them

Very interesting viewpoints from Doris Lessing, who passed away yesterday at the age of 94. Nobel Prize-winning novelist, short story writer, poet and playwright. Her 1988 book, The Fifth Child, was an unforgettable portrait of a family that ends up having to deal with a very unpleasant fifth child. It's a book that will stay with you for a long time afterward. 

“Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.”

― Doris Lessing, The Golden Notebook

Loving movies

I’ve been a movie-goer for what seems like forever. I can remember the wonderful feelings associated with going to see films as a child; the anticipation, excitement, the experience of sitting in the theater waiting for the film to start—all of those feelings are still with me now whenever I enter the movie theater, many years later. I love sitting in the dark watching the big screen, waiting for the magic to start; no matter how many possibilities exist for watching films in other formats, nothing will ever replace the wonder of the big screen for me. The first two films I can remember seeing as a young child were Snow White, a Disney animated classic, and That Darn Cat starring Hayley Mills, whom we all wanted to be at that time—cute and adventurous. My mother took us to see both films at The Music Hall in Tarrytown. I can remember the long line to buy tickets that stretched around the corner onto Broadway—parents with their children. Hayley Mills also starred in a film called The Moon-Spinners, another favorite of ours from 1964, but one that we saw as a two-part television series several years later on ‘The Wonderful World of Disney’ that ran on NBC if I remember correctly, at least at the time when we were children. As a family, we went to see Oliver! (1968) and The Twelve Chairs (1970); my parents wanted to see these films and I remember struggling to understand the latter film, an early Mel Brooks comedy about the search for jewels hidden in one of twelve dining chairs. But understanding Oliver Twist’s life situation was not so difficult—you could relate to his misery as a fellow child or at least imagine how it must feel to be orphaned and alone in the world. Understanding the brutality of the relationship between Nancy and Bill Sikes was more problematic; not surprising since violence between lovers was not something we knew much about or had seen as children. I wanted to see Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, which came out in 1968, but my parents would not take us to see it, probably because it had to do with young love (and sex) and my parents did not want us getting ideas in our heads about such things. So I didn’t get a chance to see it until I was in my early 20s. Getting a chance to see a film that you had waited to see for a long time wasn’t like today where you could just rent a film from Netflix or download it from iTunes. If you knew that a film was going to be shown for a limited amount of time, either in the theater or on TV, you made plans to see it, because you never knew when you would be able to catch it again.

I am one of those people who enjoy doing post-mortems on films I’ve seen—dissecting the plot, the symbolism, the movie’s philosophy, what it all meant, the characters, the acting—all of it. Very few people I know enjoy doing this to the degree I do; you come out of the theater and ask, ‘What did you think of the film?’, and people will respond, ‘I liked it’ or ‘It was very good’, or some such comment. But it’s hard to get most folks involved in a long discussion about the movie. And that has to suffice, because not everyone likes doing movie analyses like I do. I’ve tried, and there are few takers. My father was one of those people who enjoyed discussing movies in detail; he was my conversational partner when it came to the arts—literature, movies, plays, music. Movies are entertainment for most people; they are for me as well, but I like being jolted out of my comfort zone by a movie, and I like finding out why. I want to know why some films provoke me, why others intrigue me or make me sad, how symbolism in one movie reminds me of another movie or of a book I’ve read or a song I’ve heard. I like how film music can trigger nostalgic feelings that remind me of people from my past or a book from long ago. I like the interconnectedness of different art forms, and the fact that I can make the connections if I want to. I want to connect the dots—it seems important to me to do so.  

Living a balanced life

Apropos my last post--Finding Balance, the Adventure Center now has a blog, and one of their recent posts has to do with balance and living a balanced life. I encourage you to read the post--it's insightful and offers some ideas for how the future of our society could be shaped, starting with its children. If you'd like to read the post, you'll find it here: http://www.adventurecenterjourneysofwonder.org/1/post/2013/01/a-wish-as-we-enter-2013.html

About the film Shoot the Moon

I sat and watched the 1982 film Shoot the Moon last night on TCM; it has to be at least the tenth time I’ve seen the film. It is hands-down the best movie I’ve ever seen about marital problems, impending divorce, and the effects of a broken relationship on children. I love this film for its raw honesty and the incredible acting of Albert Finney (George), Diane Keaton (Faith), and Dana Hill (who plays their eldest daughter Sherry). These are characters that you can actually like and get to know--better put, these are people that you can relate to. Each time I watch the movie, I realize that the entire story resembles life—messy, chaotic, no pat answers, situations that are not explainable or forgivable or black-and-white. There are no easy answers in this movie, and no contrived happy endings. If you choose to interpret the ending as a new beginning for the estranged couple, you are a romantic. I am not so sure, even after the tenth viewing. And that could say more about me than about the character of Faith, who remains ambiguous about her feelings for George even after he dumps her for a younger woman (Sandy, played by Karen Allen) with a small son, moves out, and goes to live with Sandy. I like Faith’s ambiguity; she isn’t sure what she wants, even when she gets involved with Frank (played by Peter Weller), who is the contractor she hires to build the tennis court she has always wanted. She still loves George, even though she knows that so much of their relationship is irretrievably broken. She is jealous of Sandy and has no desire to hear about her. She has four daughters to take care of and does a good job of taking care of them in a difficult situation. She could have demanded more attention and focus on herself; she could have wallowed in self pity. But she doesn’t. Her father’s illness and her mother’s interference in her life are also issues that she deals with, in addition to the demise of her marriage. This too is the way real life is. You don’t get to choose all the time what you want to deal with—one problem at a time. Sometimes there are multiple problems that get dumped on you all at once, and the only choice you have is to sink or swim. George for his part still loves Faith, but he is in love with Sandy because she pays attention to him, like Faith used to before she got totally involved in raising their children. He is also a jealous person, aggressive, and has an explosive temper; he doesn’t like Frank and doesn’t like the idea of Frank hanging around his old home getting to know Faith or his children.

The most poignant scenes in the film are those between Sherry and George, and Sherry and Faith. Sherry, who is a teenager on the verge of adulthood, is most affected by her parents’ split, and desperately tries to understand what is going on. She doesn’t get many clear answers from either parent. What they do manage to impart to her is how much they love her, despite their own problems. Sherry gets to see her parents as flawed people; again, this is how real life is. The scene when she asks her mother why husbands and wives don’t wait for each other as they pass through doors on their way to new rooms—in essence, why they don’t share their new experiences with each other—is touching. Or when she asks her father if he loves Timmy (Sandy’s son) more than his own daughters and George says no. But Sherry knows (and verbalizes) her doubt about his priorities; she knows that Timmy will ultimately usurp her and her sisters’ places in their father’s heart. Sandy will see to that. This is also a reality many people in such a situation do not want to deal with. It’s easier to lie, to say that nothing will be different, when of course nothing could be further from the truth. Children know the truth; they can intuit it. Children in the same family may deal with their parents’ divorce differently. Sherry is the oldest daughter and the hardest hit. It’s hard not to sympathize with her anger and confusion. Shoot the Moon is timeless despite its being thirty years old; it has as much to say to us today about marriage and divorce as it did when it was made.     

Fundraising time at Adventure Center

Dear Blog Readers,

I have written about Adventure Center before in my blog (http://paulamdeangelis.blogspot.no/2010/08/journeys-of-wonder-at-adventure-center.html). 

Adventure Center is deeply engaged in fundraising now. Today I am posting a letter written by Elizabeth Mayer, LCSW, President and Executive Director, talking about the mission of Adventure Center and the success of its after-school Arts, Education & Adventures in Nature Programs, and how much the children enjoy and are helped by them.  I hope you will support them in their efforts. No donation is too small. 

Elizabeth writes: 

---------------- 

Common to many of the students who walk through our doors at Adventure Center, Robert has been struggling with issues of injury and pain.  Robert began classes here in 2008.  His lack of belief in himself was palpable. He had given up on school.  His school had almost given up on him, describing him as bright but inattentive, lazy, and defiant. 

Four years have passed and Robert has been immersed in Adventure Center’s after-school Arts, Education & Adventures in Nature Programs.  Now Robert speaks with enthusiasm and wonder.  Robert is now able to express his bright, curious mind, and engaging personality, and with that he is even serving in leadership roles at Adventure Center. Over the last year, Robert has said, “I used to feel mad at everyone. I couldn’t express myself and no one understood me.  Hey; that’s not true anymore!”

Robert is one child of many that have been helped by Adventure Center. The center is affiliated with organizations like Lincoln Center Institute, Community Works, Symphony Space, the Bronx Historical Society, and others (as well as the educators and therapists who provide a learning and supportive environment).  Adventure Center is appreciated as an oasis of innovation and creativity by all who pass through. We invite you to join our mission as we celebrate four successful years as a nonprofit Educational Center in Riverdale, New York.  As we approach this milestone we are stretching our scope and reach to answer the growing demand of children, families, and other organizations

This elevated level of activity brings Adventure Center to a new juncture in its’ journey; it will need to create the means to hire part-time and salaried staff to manage the daily life of the organization, to support the artists, educators, and group leader as we maintain a good ratio of adult/child in each program/class.  As we engage in the first steps of this transition—fully volunteer to partially volunteer/partially salaried organization— we will ensure that we continue a mission of high quality programming in a nurturing setting for all of our children.  The support of friends like you will afford Adventure Center the ability to remain self sustaining and to continue to thrive. 

Please help us reach our goal of raising $50,000. Any amount will help us meet our ambitious goal and continue to help us meet our mission. Your tax deductible gift of $50, $100, $500 or more—will immediately be put to use as we add part time staff—persons who will directly enhance  the learning and growth of our children.

There are several levels to this giving opportunity—we appreciate consideration of your support.  These costs add up, yet these are some examples of the large impact your gift can make on children like Larry and others at Adventure Center.

Ø  $100 can provide the means to add an additional group leader for 1 session of the group’s 10-weeks

Ø  $100 will purchase materials for 1 child for 1 ten-week session

Ø  $250 for 3-ten week sessions

Ø  $500 will purchase materials for 1 child for six-months           

Ø  $750 for seven months      

Ø   $900 will purchase materials for 1 child for a year.

You may donate by check or online by clicking the donate now button on the home page of our  website: http://www.adventurecenterjourneysofwonder.org/index.html

Adventure Center serves students with limited financial means.  Students are motivated and committed to achieving success in school, and in life.  Your gift will have a significant impact on their ability to learn and succeed. 

Thank you for partnering with our students!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Mayer, LCSW

President and Executive Director, Adventure Center

3736 Henry Hudson Parkway, Suite 207, Bronx, NY 10463

Follow Adventure Center on www.facebook.com/adventurecenterbrx

Reality check

You’ve got to wonder why it was so important that Schwarzenegger decided that he had to tell his wife that he had an out-of-wedlock child with his mistress exactly now, in 2011, years after the fact. If anything interests me about this case, it is that. What’s the hurry? So my guess is something’s up. There’s a reason he felt pressured into coming clean. I don’t know what that is, but my guesses are as follows: there are more out-of-wedlock children than we know about, and they’ve grown up and are interested in whom dad is, and maybe they found out that dad is a high-profile person, and they’re not going to keep quiet about it. And really, why should they? They would have every right to have contact with their biological father. That’s only human. Secrets will ‘out’. That’s the nature of secrets. Sometimes they come out after a person dies, but other times they come out while a person is still alive to cause problems for that person. Another possibility is that Arnold wanted ‘out’—of his marriage and the secrecy surrounding his life. Maybe he needed to get away from what he viewed as a restrictive life. Maybe he is having a slightly delayed mid-life crisis. Or maybe he doesn’t really care anymore about much of anything, which would be most sad for his children, since they don’t deserve the fallout. Or maybe he calculated the whole thing—I mean, he’s been a governor but he can never be president since he wasn’t born in the USA. So he has nowhere else to go politically and then who would really care about his personal life and secrets? But I’m putting my money on a new woman in Arnold’s life. Given the egoist that he is, I’m betting that there is a woman we don’t know about yet waiting in the wings for him to ‘get free’ and then when he is there will be the requisite number of months mourning the ‘dead marriage’ and then it will suddenly be announced that he has found happiness again after a long period of remorse and self-incrimination. That he has forgiven himself and moved on. And of course the press and media will eat it up, since Americans like to forgive their movie ‘heroes’ after they’ve first nailed them to the cross and whipped them until they’re bloody and begging for sympathy. I don’t think Arnold will beg, but I think he has factored in a certain amount of unpleasantness ahead (how many days and months he has to suffer through) until he is ‘redeemed’ in the American public eye. His fate is not the fate of Jesse James who betrayed Sandra Bullock. Jesse James was and is a nobody who found some fame with Bullock; his ‘coming clean’ did nothing for him and just made him look more like the bottom feeder that he is. His fate won’t be that of Mel Gibson or Charlie Sheen either—both of whom self-imploded with their bizarre comments and dealings. Schwarzenegger has had a high-profile Hollywood career that he is now putting on hold to deal with his family problems. It’s the polite way of saying that he will resume his career once the furor has died down. He is an egoist, pure and simple. Arnold comes first and always has. The only thing I’m waiting for is to hear the name of the new woman in his life who loves the ‘real Arnie’, who knows the real Arnie and who accepts the real Arnie—so that we can watch him sail off into the sunset with the woman of his dreams. Sounds like a real Hollywood ending to me.

Learning empathy

I was thinking the other day about some of the children’s stories that helped shape my view of the world and my outlook on helping others and having empathy for others. Empathy (understanding, sympathy, compassion) is in rather short supply in the world today. I can’t help but think that if there was more empathy there would be less hatred and fewer problems, because if you can step into another person’s shoes and see how he or she lives life with all of the attendant problems, then you have opened your mind and heart to that person and it won’t be possible to ignore his or her sufferings. Empathy means putting yourself in someone else’s place. It’s not easy because it may mean suffering along with another person, shedding tears with them, grieving with them, and just being there for them without having your own agenda. The latter is hard at times because we all have our own agendas and we would like them to come first, especially if we have often put our own wishes and goals on the back burner. But sometimes the needs of others must come first.

The Lame Squirrel's Thanksgiving by Carolyn Sherwin Bailey is one of those children’s books that had a huge emotional impact on me as a child and that I remember all these years later. It tells the story of a little squirrel that got his foot caught in a trap which led to him limping about and being unable to gather nuts for the winter quickly enough compared to the other squirrels. So when autumn arrives he doesn’t have enough food saved for the winter. Thanksgiving comes and he starts to cry because he is alone and hungry. Mrs. Striped Chipmunk thinks about the little squirrel and wonders how he is doing. She puts together a basket of food for him and goes to visit him with her gift. As she is walking to his house, she meets the other animals in the neighborhood—the woodchuck, the rabbit, two field mice--who ask her what she is doing. When she tells them they all contribute some food item to the basket, so that it becomes so heavy that she needs help to carry it. The field mice step up to the plate to help her carry it. The little squirrel is overjoyed and grateful as Mrs. Striped Chipmunk sets the table for his dinner and the field mice help him to the table so he can eat. There is enough food in the basket to last him the whole winter. This little story is all about empathy—thinking about the plight of others, stepping in to help, finding help along the way from others who also want to help, and making someone happy. It may be a sentimental story that tugs at your heartstrings, but perhaps we need more of these kinds of stories in the world, as adults and as children. Parents and teachers didn’t need to pester us about the importance of empathy when this type of story presented the value of empathy so simply and so beautifully. I also remember my mother telling us about her own mother and some of the women in her mother’s neighborhood in Brooklyn—that they would feed the vagabonds who knocked on their doors asking for food. There was apparently some kind of innate civility and respect on both sides. The vagabonds did not steal from these women and the women did not appear to be afraid of them. It is such a different world today—one would almost never think of doing this out of fear of being robbed. The codes of conduct have changed. Yet there are still people who help the poor and the hungry in the ways that they can, apart from the official charitable organizations that are set up to do this type of work. The churches I attended in New York and New Jersey sponsored soup lines and food baskets and gift trees at Christmas-time—I remember all those attempts at helping others. They made an impression too and it felt good to be a part of them.

There are other children’s stories that made an impression on me as well. One of them—In the Great Walled Country by Raymond MacDonald Alden--had to do with a far-off land of children where there was a forest of Christmas trees that were covered with gifts at Christmas time, and the children could go to the forest and seek gifts for others from the trees. It was never the case that they picked gifts just for themselves. But one year a ‘well-meaning’ stranger to the kingdom convinces the king to issue a proclamation stating that each person could pick his or her own gift in an attempt to make the whole process more effective. There was a little boy named Inge who did not like this new arrangement since his sister was crippled and could not go into the forest to get her own presents. So he ignores the proclamation and picks gifts for his sister, filling his bag full with presents. As he leaves the forest he meets many other children who wonder where he got all the gifts, because when they entered the forest they didn’t ‘see’ any gifts on the trees. He tells them that he had no problems finding gifts, and they stand there, puzzled and unhappy. They go to visit Grandfather Christmas to ask why he left no gifts on the trees this year. He answers them “The presents were there, but they were never intended for children who were looking only for themselves”. The moral of this story is crystal clear. A steady diet of such stories and you end up learning that it is a good thing to think of others, to put others first. And you learn empathy—putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. And that’s a good thing.