Blog

The fertility rate is down. But a greater percentage of American women are mothers now than a decade ago. Currently 86 percent of U.S. women ages 40 to 44 have at least one child!*

The increase is especially striking among two groups: first, women who never married; second, women with advanced degrees. It appears that what previously were considered barriers to becoming a mother, are now perceived differently. In fact, the biggest increase in motherhood in the last twenty years is among women with a higher education.  Among women with doctorates or professional degrees, some 80 percent now have a child by age 44, a significant jump from two decades earlier.

At the same time, so far at least, the number of women in leadership roles remains strikingly low. This applies across the board – to women in business, in politics, and in the non profit sector. Which again raises the question of why. Why, given the reduction now in gender bias, given the various supports now available to women, and given the emphasis now on achieving diversity, do leadership roles remain so elusive to women?

Could it be that there’s a connection between the two? That precisely because more women now are mothers, many of them single mothers, for them the exercise of leadership is not a priority? Or, at least, not a priority when their children are young? Not a priority precisely during those years when ascending the leadership ladder is most likely?

We know full well that the U.S. lags in family friendly public policies. We also know full well that U. S. companies remain stingy when it comes to parental leave. At the same time, we similarly know that Sweden, as much as any place on the planet, strives consciously and deliberately for gender equity. Yet even in Sweden, the number of women in leadership roles is meager. Not nearly as meager as in the U. S., but, still, meager. In 2014, only one in ten CEO positions in the largest 1,050 Swedish companies were held by women.

Which returns us to a point I made previously: that being a mother, especially of children and adolescents, and being a leader, is not generally a match made in heaven. The fact is that more educated women who now leave work are in their late 30s and early 40s – precisely because they are having babies later in life. This makes the match between motherhood and leadership even more fraught.

—————————————————————————————

*https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/upshot/the-us-fertility-rate-is-down-yet-more-women-are-mothers.html

A recent column by Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal about the prospect of Oprah Winfrey running for president was titled, “The Perfect Candidate for Therapist in Chief.” The title says it all. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Winfrey’s history that qualifies her in any conventional sense to be president of the United States. Rather she has been, first on her long-running eponymous television show and then beyond, a first-class listener, a fabled survivor, and an iconic earth mother. What she has not been, even for a single day, is enlisted in the American military or embroiled in American politics.

On the one hand no surprise. Neither George W. Bush or Barack Obama brought to the White House extensive political education or training.  And Donald Trump famously, infamously, had exactly zero directly relevant experience and exactly zero directly relevant expertise. In other words, the American presidency has already been sullied. We have already assumed that leadership, even, or, especially, presidential leadership, is something that can be exercised without much or even any leadership learning at all.  So why not Oprah?

Winfrey for president says far less about her than it does about us. About how we the American people have got to the point of thinking of leadership as akin to a hobby, as something that can and perhaps even should be exercised without any previous practice whatsoever. It’s an astonishingly low bar we’ve set, partly because we’ve set it primarily for leadership in politics, not for leadership in business, not for leadership in the military, and not for leadership anyplace else.  Mary Barra, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors, is 56 years old. Not only did she start working at the company at age 18, it’s well known that her father was a dye maker at GM for almost 40 years.  One of the reasons then that this woman got this job – a first in the auto industry –  was that GM coursed through her veins. The company was in her blood.

Makes sense. What does not make sense is that America’s chief executive is conceived of as radically different from GM’s chief executive. What’s required for the second – experience and expertise – should be required also for the first.

I’ve just returned to the U.S. after a week working in Beijing.

Let me reiterate some conventional wisdoms, confirmed by my own observations.

• Everything you’ve read about China in recent years seems right – and then some. It is fast becoming the powerhouse of the 21st century.    
• The state is increasingly intrusive and oppressive. Even a tourist can feel it, see it. Every Chinese person with whom I had an honest conversation confirmed the observation. But, so far at least, the Chinese people are willing to trade individual freedom for collective strength and relative prosperity. How long this overriding acquiescence will last is uncertain. But for now it appears entrenched.
• Xi Jinping is the most powerful single figure in China since Mao. He feels strong enough to have dared in the last year to accrue to himself a level of power and authority typically associated not with authoritarian leaders, but with totalitarian ones.
• Curiously, for China is anything other than communist in any traditional sense, the ideology of Marxism, Communism, is being vigorously and rigorously revived. Once again, the Chinese Communist Party is becoming the primary instrument of state control.
• Xi intends to be strongman not only within China, but without. He, the Chinese, have a strategic plan that is far more ambitious than anything Americans can even conceive of. The Chinese are investing heavily in places such as distant Asia and Africa, which within the next decade will bestow on China unrivaled global influence.

China Daily is an English language newspaper published in China. It is considered to be state-run.  On one of that days I was in Beijing, January 12, the front-page headline was reminiscent of nothing so much as Pravda, for decades the main state-run rag of the Soviet Union.

The headline read, Xi Urges Strict Party Discipline. The text that followed, reprinted here in part, speaks for itself:

Highlighting the importance of governing the Party with strict discipline, Xi required the whole Party to maintain the authority and unified leadership of the CPC Central Committee, intensify the fight against corruption, and strive for a better “political ecology” in the party.

It is a must to uphold and enhance the Party’s comprehensive leadership in the process of governing the party with strict discipline, Xi said, adding that it is fundamental to maintain the authority and unified leadership of the CPC Central Committee.      

The Party should focus on capacity-building for its long-term governance and the building of its progressiveness and purity to ensure that the CPC becomes a Marxist political party that always walks in front of the times, supported by the people brave for self-revolution and standing the test of all challenges, Xi said.

A few days ago, a front-page NY Times headline read, “Under Trump, a Once Unimaginable Presidency Becomes a Reality.”  Written by the estimable Peter Baker, the article argues that Trump has “transformed the presidency.”

According to Baker the list of transformations is long, including among others:

• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never spoke immoderately not to mention outrageously.
• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never kept on the side a profit-making business.
• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never attacked institutions they oversaw (the F.B.I and C.I.A, for example).
• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never waged war against members of their own party and even their own cabinet.
• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never appealed to Americans’ basest instincts on race, religion, and gender.
• Trump’s different from virtually all previous presidents who never rattled the nuclear saber.

The list goes on. The key question though – to which the definitive answer is at the moment unknowable – is whether the changes to which Baker alludes are authentic transformations or simply aberrations? In other words, will the changes that Trump made prove permanent – in which case they are transformations? Or will they prove evanescent – in which case they are aberrations?

One could argue – and I do – that the behaviors that Trump is evidencing in the White House will prove not to be transforming at all, but simply aberrant. In fact, I predict that with every new revelation related to his overweening unfitness for the presidential office will come a heightened aversion to repeating our electoral error. I am predicting, in other words, that the next American who is elected president will be the anti-Trump. The antithesis of the man who currently sits in the Oval Office in both his style and substance.

Peter Baker is an estimable reporter, all right, but on this one he’s wrong. Trump will prove not to be an agent of change. He will prove a deviation as well as a deviant.

The worst American leader of the year is not an American. He is a Russian. He is Vladimir Putin.

As his startling success on American soil made clear, Putin was not bad as in “ineffective.” He was bad as in “unethical.” The havoc wreaked on Americans by Russians operating in bad faith is difficult to calculate. But in 2017 it became clear that it was massive. Moreover, it’s not over. The detritus of the damage done stinks still – and it will well beyond even the 2018 election. Putin has rendered America’s political system a body blow from which, best case scenario, it will take years to recover.

Putin’s prowess is finite. Ironically, he did not get what he most wanted – lifting of sanctions against Russia. Moreover, in his own country, his high popularity is, to an extent, an airy artifice, pumped up by thwarting and threatening his opposition.  But Putin is a past master at playing a weak hand. (Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s) Which is why, from an American perspective, the damage he does is as daunting as dangerous.

In recent months, the following became clear:

• The Russian government ensnared Donald Trump in a convoluted and corrupt relationship for years.
• The Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential campaign from its inception to its conclusion.
• The Russian government put its thumb on the scale for Trump and against Hillary Clinton.
• The Russian government continued to influence Trump even after he moved into the White House.
• The Russian government manipulated President Trump to the point of his being a patsy for President Putin.
• The Russian government does what it can where it can to sow dissent in liberal democracies.
• The Russian government does what it can where it can to assert itself in ways contrary to American interests.
• The Russian government uses new technologies to play old tricks.
• The Russian government reflects a history and ideology different from that of the American government – and it acts accordingly.

The Russian government and Vladimir Putin have been synonymous for almost two decades. Which explains why – from an American perspective – Putin’s presidency has been punishing. I’m betting, by the way, that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. That only in 2018 will the full effect of Putin’s power become evident.

Writing about the genesis of his novel, The Plot Against America, the great Philip Roth wrote, “All the assurances are provisional, even here in a two-hundred-year-old democracy. We are ambushed, even as free Americans in a powerful republic armed to the teeth, by the unpredictability that is history.”

The Plot Against America was counterfactual, an imagined scenario in which Charles Lindbergh, the great aviator and American hero who happened also be to be a rigid isolationist and committed white supremacist, had been elected president of the United States. It never happened, of course, but it was not inconceivable. During the 1930s and ‘40s, Lindbergh was, as Roth put it, “a socio-political force” to be reckoned with.

Still, when The Plot Against America was originally published, in 2004, it seemed far-fetched. Now, though, not so much. Now with Donald Trump in the White House has been a war on truth. Now with Donald Trump in the White House has been a diminution of the US as leader of the liberal world order. Now with Donald Trump in the White House has been a surge in bias and bigotry. Now with Donald Trump in the White House has been a degradation of the national discourse. Now with Donald Trump in the White House has been corruption at the highest levels of government. And now with Donald Trump in the White House has been an assault on the most venerable of American institutions.

I include on this list the press. Not incidentally, in fact ironically, it is the press – purported perpetrator of “fake news” – that I hereby designate “good leader(s) of the year”! More specifically, if Trump does not demolish our democracy, we will have the New York Times and the Washington Post to thank first and, arguably, foremost.

The importance of their investigative reporting during 2017 is impossible to overestimate. The Times and the Post have led the way in giving us the information we need, the ammunition we need, to protect ourselves against authoritarianism, maybe even totalitarianism. Of course, this fight is by no means over. America’s democracy remains under threat. Trump is not only a narcissist but a pugilist, which is precisely why 2018 threatens to be unusually nasty and singularly dangerous.

But there is evidence that we can continue to rely on – though not obviously to the point of complacency – these two venerable newspapers, both of which have long played storied parts in American journalism. Moreover, even now, when old media have been existentially threatened by new media, both the Times and the Post continue to enjoy the incalculable advantages of protection by their owners. In the case of the former, the legendary Sulzberger family; in the case of the latter, billionaire Bezos, who bought the paper in 2013 and promptly gave it an infusion of fresh cash.

In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote the following, referencing publication of the Pentagon Papers. “Far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.” Good Leaders of the Year indeed – then as well as now.

Roth must be relieved. Not completely or permanently. But, at least, partially and preliminarily.

First, some definitions.

Sexual suggests instincts and activities associated with physical attraction and, or, intimate physical contact.

Professional pertains to a profession and, or, to an occupation for which payment is received.

Harassment refers to insults, indignities, and intimidations that are prolonged and, or, repeated.

Second, some clarifications. Not all harassment perpetrated by men on women is sexual. Some instances of harassment, in fact most instances of harassment, are professional. They do not involve physical attraction, on either side, or intimate physical contact.

Professional harassment involves insults, indignities, and intimidations  that relate to work for which payment is received. Professional harassment is, I should add, not confined to men who inflict harm on women. Gender plays a role in harassment – but it is by no means the only determinant. Fact is that countless women are treated badly in the workplace not by men, but by other women.

The Financial Times recently featured several articles on women at work. For example, on December 18 the paper had a piece titled, “Third of Female Asset Managers Suffer Sexual Harassment.” The term “sexual harassment” was used repeatedly, throughout the article. But, at some point another term was used, synonymously, which was “sexist behavior.” But, of course, though “sexual harassment” and “sexist behavior” can be the same thing, they are not necessarily. Which is why sexual harassment can be subsumed under both sexist behavior and professional harassment, but sexist behavior and professional harassment can subsume many other sorts of insults, indignities, and intimidations as well.

For example, women in the workplace often report being somehow made to feel inadequate. They often report being excluded from, or diminished, during collective conversations. They often report being “mocked” or “stonewalled” at meetings. They often report being shut out of activities set up mainly with men in mind, such as partying or golfing. They often report being taken less than seriously if they are mothers than men who are fathers. And they often report endemic misogyny tantamount to a hostile workplace environment.

Would that the problems that beleaguer women in the workplace were limited to sexual harassment! Which is, of course, not to diminish the pain inflicted by sexual harassment. Rather it is to point out that it, sexual harassment, is but a single manifestation of a much larger problem – pervasive, insidious professional harassment. It’s a problem from which few women have been exempt – most assuredly not me.

I’m sure of it. It’s not that Donald Trump is afraid of Vladimir Putin. That the latter has the goods on the former. It’s not that Donald Trump owes Vladimir Putin. For, for example, putting his thumb on the scale during the 2016 presidential election. And it’s not that Donald Trump colludes with Vladimir Putin on something suspect – say, multi-million dollar property deals.

It’s that Donald Trump is in love with Vladimir Putin! It’s not clear anyone else has ever been an enduring object of Trump’s affections – not Ivana (wife #1), not Marla (wife #2), not Melania (wife #3).  Not any of the other scores of women with whom he in some way scored. Maybe his daughter, Ivanka, but, then, she’s off limits, or she should be.

So… no wonder Donald is stuck on Vladimir. No woman has ever captured the American president’s heart. And there’s hardly ever been anyone quite like the Russian president. Finally, someone worthy of the superlatives of which Trump is endlessly fond. Putin is “terrific.” Putin is “fantastic.” Putin is “the greatest.”

Well, depending on your taste in leaders, Putin really is remarkable. Over his most faithful followers he exercises nearly complete control. Over nearby landmasses he feels free to seize them, or to try to, at will. Over his political opponents he wields the equivalent of a political, or literal, pick-ax. And over the Russian people he casts a spell so great that in March of next year he is certain to win a fourth term in office. A full, six-year term that would make his 24-year tenure (including four as prime minister) the longest by any Russian leader since Stalin. Can you blame The Donald for losing his heart?!

Trump is so smitten by Putin he won’t tolerate anyone saying a bad word about him. Trump is so smitten by Putin he himself won’t cast even the slightest aspersion. Trump is so smitten by Putin he goes the extra step – he picks up the phone just to hear the man’s voice, the mellifluous tones of his precious pet, Vladi. Be still my beating heart.

There’s just one small flaw in their relationship. It’s not clear that it’s reciprocal. It’s not clear that Vladimir loves Donald nearly as much as Donald loves Vladimir. In fact, some say the Russian plays the American like a fiddle.

I woke this morning to political pundits feverish with excitement. Feverishly excited by – in some cases exercised by – the unanticipated victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the special election for Senator from the state of Alabama. Almost without exception, though, the pundits are fixating on the race. On how and why and where exactly Moore lost, and on how and why and where exactly Jones won.

But what I found enthralling in the last 24 hours had nothing to do with the race per se. Rather it had to do with the consequences thereof. I refer particularly to the content of what Jones said in Birmingham last night, in a speech to his supporters immediately after he was declared winner.

Jones began in the usual way – by profusely thanking his family and friends, his campaign team and political supporters. Then he continued in the usual way. He spoke verities and niceties and even homilies that under other circumstances would be unremarkable. But, given the temper and tone and tirades typical of what emanates now from the White House, what Jones said sounded fresh and refreshing, assuring and reassuring, calming and comforting – a reminder of why all my life, until recently, I was proud to say, “I am an American.”

Jones: “This entire race has been about dignity and respect.”

Jones: “This campaign has been about the rule of law.”

Jones: “This campaign has been about common courtesy and decency.”

Jones: “This campaign was about finding common ground and reaching across.”

Jones: “As Dr. King liked to quote, ‘The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ Tonight, tonight, ladies and gentlemen, tonight, tonight in this time, in this place, you helped bend that moral arc a little closer to that justice….”

What a relief! What an enormous relief.

A witch is a female who is thought to have evil powers.

A warlock is a male witch – a man who is thought to practice witchcraft.

Originally the term “witch hunt” was used to describe the search for and subsequent persecution of witches. Now, more broadly, it is used to describe the search for and subsequent persecution of any individual or group that is unorthodox or unpopular.

I coin the term “warlock hunt” specifically to describe what for two months has been rather a relentless search for and subsequent persecution of men charged with harassing or assaulting women (and, sometimes, men).  This movement or wave has generally been applauded for being a long overdue corrective to a culture that since time immemorial has tolerated men behaving badly – which is a position I support.

However, groups without leaders – groups that consist in the main of furious followers – risk becoming a mob. Risk taking on a mob mentality. So, lest the current corrective backfires, at least two distinctions should immediately be made:

• Distinction # 1: Between a man who is a sexual harasser or abuser and a man who is a bounder, a swordsman, a Lothario.
• Distinction # 2: Between a man whose sexual harassment is merely offensive, and a man whose sexual harassment is downright aggressive.

The history of change triggered by the powerless taking on the powerful is checkered. Sometimes virtue rapidly prevails. Other times there is blood on the floor and many years passed before wrong is righted. The sooner “The Silence Breakers” take a more nuanced approach to their search for justice, the sooner their search will be rewarded.