"What is the worst workplace nightmare the pregnant employee faces? It is the fear that her employer will find some way not to guarantee her job back on return from maternity leave," said Andrew Tyndall, a consultant who studies evening news content.I couldn't have said it better myself.
ABC News has just announce that veteran broadcaster Charlie Gibson will replace Elizabeth Vargas as anchor of "World News Tonight." It seems Vargas is pregnant, so the network has decided to demote her.
Never mind that she faced the challenge of taking over as co-anchor, with Bob Woodruff, following the death of Peter Jennings ... only to have her new partner seriously injured covering the war in Iraq.
In making the announcement ABC News president David Westin was cautious not to upset viewers by commenting that Woodruff, who suffered serious head injuries in Iraq, will "always have a role on this program as an anchor - if and when he's ready for it."
It's too bad Westin doesn't have the same concern -- or consideration -- for women.
10 comments:
Where did you get information that Vargas was demoted by ABC because of her pregnancy? Everything I have read on this said that she voluntarily stepped down in order to give birth and then be with her little one full-time during his or her first couple of months. Obviously another anchor needs to be named, but does that mean that she is losing her job or that she will not be welcome back to ABC after giving birth? Can you provide a link or something that backs up your suggestions in this post?
The nightly news anchor chair is the top seat in the news division. And Elizabeth Vargas has been filling it for quite some time now.
If Vargas wants to continue working for ABC she will of course have to say that she is "voluntarily stepping down" to give birth and care for her newborn. Pregnancy is a short-term condition, and many women return to their jobs once they have given birth.
Instead of offering her a co-anchor role with Gibson when she returns the network is sending her back to 20/20. That is a demotion.
Further evidence is the network's comment about Bob Woodruff. It's a kind gesture, that will probably help with his recovery, but stating that he will "always have a role on this program as an anchor" while giving Vargas the boot sends a bad signal to women.
Why does this have to be a demotion? According to the Washington Post article published yesterday, it was indeed Vargas' decision, though it appears that her decision is not good enough for NOW president Kim Gandy.
Again, couldn't it be that Vargas has indeed chosen to focus less on her career and more on her family? Is that a crime? Shouldn't more women be allowed to make that decision? Why are feminists distraught that women are choosing to stay home and raise children? Why do they refuse to acknowledge that many women actually are better off in their own minds in staying home than in competing in the work world?
Why are women like Linda Hirshman so scared for other women to do what so many of them naturally desire -- stay home, raise children, and take care of their households? After all studies have shown (see here as well)that women in traditional roles are happier and more fulfilled. Isn't that feminism should be about? Making women happy, even if it means fulfilling traditional roles, rather than out in the marketplace.
On a personal note, my wife was in Management for a few years and then began to hate it. She desired more and more for a family and to serve rather than lead. She quit her job, went to nursing school, and then married me. As soon as she gets done and works a couple of years, we are planning on having several children, naturally and through adoption. She can't wait! And all of our other friends feel the same way and all of them are in great, nurturing, loving marriages where the women feel fulfilled and the men are enamored by their wives. What could be better than that?!
So let Elizabeth Vargas choose her family over her career. The data seems to indicate that she will be happier and more emotionally fulfilled. And besides now she can stay home and let her husband sing "Walking in Memphis" to her all day. That would be worth it for me.
We clearly have a difference of opinion regarding feminism. I happen to think feminist DO value women who stay at home to care for their children and families. Feminists also value women who want to work outside the home. Women today owe a lot to the pioneers who have made it possible for us to have a choice between staying at home or going out into the paid workforce. Feminists have also given voice to the reality that a stay-at-home mom IS working full time, and should have the same respect as anyone working outside of the home.
Women who work in the home, raising their children and caring for their families, should receive the benefits that someone working outside the home would receive, such as contributions to their social security account, pension/retirement funds, etc. The sad reality is that many don't. The full-time work of women in the home isn't recognized within our overall labor force.
As for polling data, it's not difficult to make the data say whatever the group commissioning the poll want it to say. There are polls that say women are happiest when they go out into the paid workforce, and there are polls that say women who stay at home are happiest. Funny how men never seem to be polled on this issue.
Now, back to the discussion about Elizabeth Vargas.
She clearly invested a lot of time and energy getting to the top at ABC News. And as I mentioned earlier, if you are familiar with broadcast news you know that the anchor chair is the coveted position within network news. It's the top of the news division. To have risen to that position, and then suddenly have it taken away, is clearly a demotion.
Look at the difference in treatment between Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodward. The network has made it known the Bob can have his anchor seat back anytime he wants it -- while Elizabeth is being demoted back to 20/20.
Pregnancy isn't an illness. There is no reason why Vargas can't have a baby and a seat in the anchor chair! The men do it all the time!
And again, you seem to dismiss the reality that ANYONE who want to continue to work for a large corporation has to be careful not to burn bridges. So of COURSE she is going to say it was her decision to step down. It's the same line we have heard from folks like Andy Card and Scott McClellan when they were forced to resign. If you remember the images, McClellan voiced that it was his decision, yet he was crying during the announcement of his pending departure. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with a man shedding a few tears. I'm using this observation as an example of what people will do when they don't wish to burn the bridges behind them.
BAC
A few thoughts on your comments:
We clearly have a difference of opinion regarding feminism. I happen to think feminist DO value women who stay at home to care for their children and families.
I completely agree that we have a difference of opinion, but what about this article I cited? Clearly, Ms. Hirshman doesn't value stay-at-home moms nearly as much as you say feminists do. But, where is the outrage in the feminist community over this article? So far I have only seen conservatives up in arms about what she says here. So are you saying that the vast majority of feminists disagree with her, but on this occasion are unwilling to shout her down?
Women who work in the home, raising their children and caring for their families, should receive the benefits that someone working outside the home would receive, such as contributions to their social security account, pension/retirement funds, etc. The sad reality is that many don't. The full-time work of women in the home isn't recognized within our overall labor force.
First, I think that stay-at-home moms deserve great respect - the type of respect that is granted to them in Proverbs 31 in the Bible. But, you seem to suggest that some women received benefits for staying at home? Where are these women and exactly what women are you referring to that do receive benefits or even a salary for working only in the home only? Are their actually women that get paid for raising their children? Strange, I have never heard of such a program. And if you are suggesting that the government do something about this, where are you proposing that we should get the money from? Maybe rich families whose wives are able to stay home and raise children? Should they get those same benefits as well then? And what about working class families, likely their taxes will be raised as well. Or two-income families that do have working women in them? In the end there will be no net gain, only more government debt. Most women I know don't care to get paid to raise their children, they just want to do it and not be made to feel like lesser women as Ms. Hirshman has seemed to do to them.
As for polling data, it's not difficult to make the data say whatever the group commissioning the poll want it to say. There are polls that say women are happiest when they go out into the paid workforce, and there are polls that say women who stay at home are happiest. Funny how men never seem to be polled on this issue.
First, the study I cited was done by the University of Virginia and the article seemed to indicate that the researchers were surprised by the data. But, I'm kind of a see-it-for-myself guy. Care to point me to these polls that say otherwise? Are the Mainstream Media just supressing these polls or were the ones I cited just so provocative as to illicit the nightly news? Just list a couple for me with included links if you don't mind. Otherwise, your statements here do not reflect a valid defense.
She clearly invested a lot of time and energy getting to the top at ABC News. And as I mentioned earlier, if you are familiar with broadcast news you know that the anchor chair is the coveted position within network news. It's the top of the news division. To have risen to that position, and then suddenly have it taken away, is clearly a demotion.
Yes, I am familiar with the nightly news anchor position. I don't live in a bubble. But, her investment doesn't mean that she is incapable of stepping down for valid reasons. Lots of people in the work world take prized positions only to step down because of difficult circumstances. I would say pregnancy and raising two children is one of those circumstances, especially if what Leanne Kleinmann of the Commercial-Appeal reports is true, that her doctor more or less demanded that "she cut back her work hours, or risk being placed on bed rest."
Look at the difference in treatment between Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodward. The network has made it known the Bob can have his anchor seat back anytime he wants it -- while Elizabeth is being demoted back to 20/20.
Actually this is raw speculation that isn't grounded in fact. Can you show me where ABC has noted since Vargas's departure that Woodruff would be welcome back to co-anchor? Actually, the opposite seems true. In a recent interview with Cathie Lewis, ABC News spokeswoman, she said, "The two-anchor format was created with those two people in mind...You can't just plug somebody else in there." That suggests that the network won't be plugging Woodruff in either. I think maybe we should give ABC a break here on any announcements concerning a man still recovering from a severe injury. Still, any suggestion that Gibson won't be the sole anchor is just wild speculation.
Pregnancy isn't an illness. There is no reason why Vargas can't have a baby and a seat in the anchor chair! The men do it all the time!
Men have babies and then go back to anchor chairs! Whoa! News flash! Actually, as you pointed out above, this situation is unique. No woman has ever tried to do what Vargas is attempting. Vargas is reported to have said regarding the stress of 2 children (not just one baby) and the anchor chair that "I'd have a hard time thrusting my baby at my husband or baby nurse and saying, 'I'll see you guys in two weeks, I'm going to a war zone.'" Vargas and others have made it abundantly clear that the anchor role is a demanding job. Has it ever crossed your mind that in stepping down Vargas might be a bit embarrassed that she couldn't handle it and all this media attention isn't good for her? And what about her spouse, Marc Cohn? Is it fair to him to have to raise 2 children practically alone (or with a nanny) while his wife performs a demanding job like this? It just seems reckless to think that her role as a mother and wife wouldn't come first in her mind and the demands would just be too great to handle the job at the level she has come to expect from herself.
And again, you seem to dismiss the reality that ANYONE who want to continue to work for a large corporation has to be careful not to burn bridges. So of COURSE she is going to say it was her decision to step down. It's the same line we have heard from folks like Andy Card and Scott McClellan when they were forced to resign. If you remember the images, McClellan voiced that it was his decision, yet he was crying during the announcement of his pending departure. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with a man shedding a few tears. I'm using this observation as an example of what people will do when they don't wish to burn the bridges behind them.
I don't dismiss it any more than you dismiss the FACT that Vargas herself has answered the ABC critics time and time again. Unless you have some sort of 6th sense or actual evidence that supports your assumptions that your theory is correct and what are the plain facts are only an illusion, then there is no reason to suggest that anything other than what Vargas has said is correct. What you are saying is that Vargas, her family, ABC, ABC's spokesWOMAN, and everyone else close to this situation is lying, but those who sit back and speculate on a conspiracy theory are correct. Without any hard core evidence, that defies reason.
The fact is Vargas didn't cry, she doesn't seem at all upset or irritated by the decision, and all of her reasons for doing so are legitimate. Wild speculation doesn't make something true, it only shows an unwillingness to accept the facts. Cry foul all you want, but don't try to pass off thin speculation as Gospel truth. That doesn't put a very intelligent face on feminism or your website.
But, thanks for taking the time to engage me on this. I appreciate your candor and your unwillingness to back down or censor me. That shows character even if I think you are out in left field on this one.
1) Your post is the first time I've heard of Linda Hirshman, so she must have a larger following among your group of friends than she does with mine. Does she represent an organized group, or is she just representing her opinion?
2) You missed the point completely here. Let's say that a woman never works in the "paid" workforce, that she is a full-time mother and family care giver. Let's say that her husband dies before she does -- which could very likely happen since women tend on average to live longer than men. The Social Security benefits the woman would receive if the husband died is less than what the man would receive if his wife died before he did. Therefore, her years of contribution to the family are not valued at the same level as those of her "working" husband. And, even though a recent news article said that a woman's work in the home would be valued at $130,000 if the family had to pay someone to do everything that she does, that contribution to society does not appear anywhere in our GNP.
3) It has been said that 76% of all people make up statistics. You clearly have more time in your day to research this topic than I do, but then I imagine you don't have the same at-home demands on your time that many women do.
4) Bob Woodward is clearly not in a position to be able to fulfil his responsibilities as co-anchor of the evening news, yet the network has not asked him to step aside. In fact, they went out of their way to assure him that they would accommodate his needs. Funny how they didn't make these same accommodations for Vargas.
5) This was included in the report: In making the announcement ABC News president David Westin was cautious not to upset viewers by commenting that Woodruff, who suffered serious head injuries in Iraq, will "always have a role on this program as an anchor - if and when he's ready for it."
6) Cute, but no cigar here! You know that the point is that men who anchor the evening news have children -- yet no one ever questions whether or not a man can be a father and the anchor of the nightly news. The question is only asked of women.
My question to you is why can't men step up to the plate and take care of their children while their wife pursues her career? What makes Marc Cohn more special than his wife? There is no reason why the care of children cannot, or should not, be the primary responsibility of the fathers.
7) No, what defies reason is your inability to see the obvious.
8) Again, you seem to have missed my point about McClellan. It was clear that he didn't really want to resign, but he didn't want to burn his bridges with the administration or the Republican party either. So, he was forced -- through his tears -- to claim he was leaving because HE wanted to. I find it hard to understand why this is so challenging for you to understand?
In closing let me just say that it is clear you have much more discretionary time on your hands than I do. But if you would like to keep this discussion going, I'm game.
BAC
No, BAC, I don't want to continue the discussion. I think I have made my points, but you clearly aren't going to listen to reason. I blogged on this topic and I think I have spoken my peace. And while I may have more time on my hands, I still have the better argument. It's based on Vargas own words and the media reports. If you want to chase conspiracy theories that have no legs to stand on go ahead, but again I think it's silly to pass off your theories as truth, especially when the poor woman has basically asked people to drop it.
How sad it is that you fail to see the obvious. It's as if you live in a bubble, oblivious to the workings of the real world.
Yeah, I really hate it that I assume that people like Vargas aren't liars and that women like her really do care about their families more than their careers. How stupid I am. Gosh!
As the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.
Post a Comment