I'm a feminist. But I'm not a man-hater or anything like that. I think people hear the word, "feminist" and get immediately turned off by the hard-core, man-hating, butch mental image it invokes for many. I guess that was the feminist of the '80s or something. I'm of the persuasion of wanting to be treated equally...of finding a way to embrace your ambitions and career while also remaining tenderly dedicated to your family. I feel like men should be able to embrace both better as well. I guess I'm more concerned with equality between the sexes but since I am female and since I think there's probably a lot more of an uphill battle for women, it makes sense to call me a feminist.
I've been reading a book about Eleanor Roosevelt. No, that was not a massive subject jump-just keep reading (does anybody read this?). That was one incredible woman. She was a feminist but she would be horrified to be called one! She was an early master of the technique of using her femininity (but not sex appeal-very different things and poor Eleanor was NOT sexy) to her advantage in many aspects of her life. She also used it for good not evil. She was a champion of so many causes and was so influential to one of our most influential and legislatively prolific presidents. We have her to thank (in part) for Social Security, the WPA, getting out of the Depression, and the list goes on!
As I read this book about such a turning point in American history, I can't help but draw parallels to our current condition. There are the coinciding crises and the initiation of practices now in question as I touched on in my last entry on cooptation but there is more. Louis Howe, a good friend of the Roosevelts and a close advisor to FDR, is quoted in this book as predicting a female president within a decade if the country continues in a "humanitarian" course. I'm not sure if we didn't continue in such a course or if Mr. Howe was just overly optimistic. But as I read about all that Mrs. Roosevelt did for our country and for the female gender within this country, I can't help but think of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi...or yes, of Sarah Palin. None of these women could even hope to hold the positions they have or will have without the work done by Eleanor Roosevelt and her contemporaries. And I think of myself and all I desire to do in my life. She was in her early 50s during the time she really began to aggressively serve our country in many ways. She started her "public career" much earlier and continued to the end of her life but the time we all seem to think of is when she was in her 50s. This is a comfort to me as I fret over not even being able to attend law school until I'm somewhere approaching 40 (or maybe having arrived at 40!). I can't even hope to contribute as much as she but I hope to contribute something.
There's something else that's been on my mind about women-and it's far less pleasant on which to dwell! Fear.
I walk around a local park at lunch most workdays. I'm trying to fit some fitness into a crazy, hectic schedule and this is an opportune time. It's in a well populated area (a church with a daycare directly across the street and a few social service buildings nearby as well) and there are always plenty of people around. I don't actually feel threatened or logically think something will happen to me while walking around this public place. However, there are times when I pass a lone man or a group of people and I feel fear. As a woman, I have felt it many times in my life. I know that even the bravest, most confident woman knows what I'm talking about. There is a vulnerability unique to our gender of which we must remain hyper-aware. It often protects us and is often based on instinct. But I don't think men have the same innate fear.
A week or two ago, I was at home alone with my two children. My toddler was down for his nap and my daughter was watching a video while I cleaned. We are in a house that's new to us but in a wonderful neighborhood. While I was occupied, the doorbell rang. My daughter (eight and a half) ran to the door and came back to me saying, "It's some men I don't know." I answered the door to find 3 young men. They asked if we needed our yard mowed. My husband does our yard work so I politely turned them down, making sure to mention that my husband takes care of that. When I went back to my daughter and told her who they were, she told me they had looked scary to her. I realized that I had felt a moment of fear also and that I had made a point of letting them know I am protected by a man. This event made me sad. It made me sad that my eight year old daughter already knows this fear. It made me sad that even in a nice neighborhood and a safe house, I had feared these males younger than I. It made me sad that I felt I needed to hide behind the protection of a male. I realize my daughter is safer for being aware of not talking to strangers and for recognizing her own instinctual reactions to potential threats. I realize I'm safer for it as well. But it frustrates me a great deal to realize that in this, I am indeed the "weaker sex"! I don't want to raise my daughter in fear but it seems to be a necessity. I work on my own fear daily and try to find the balance between heeding it and maintaining my own confidence.
It is a challenge to be a woman in today's society. But it is a challenge I face with excitement and determination. I will succeed in spite of (or maybe because of) my gender. I will raise an empowered young woman and a young man and woman who do not step on the hand of anyone but are respectful of all regardless of age, gender, race, religion or ability!
Monday, July 26, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Cooptation
Cooptation. Ever heard of it? I'm sure you have-just not under that name. It's the concept of the public and private sectors freely sharing responsibilities and employees. It's the former Wall Street CEO becoming the Chairman of the Fed. It's the airline regulator going to work for a major airline company. It's NASA hiring Boeing to manufacture shuttle parts. (Side note-I know the first one is true, the other 2 are examples that are close to life but totally made up and unresearched. If they're true, it's coincidental!)
I've been thinking a lot about cooptation lately (wow! what does that say about me!?!). I really understand the thinking behind it. There are only a limited number of experts in a given field and undoubtedly both the private and public sectors want to utilize them. Sometimes this means the private firm wants to hire away the expert who has thus far worked for the government. Sometimes this means the government wants to use the private sector's expertise to carry out programs for them. There are lots of variations of these situations but I think the the original premise remains the same. However, I also see lots of problems with cooptation-or at least potential problems.
One problem I see is motivation. Everyone has motivation for doing what they do. That motivation could be paying your mortgage or having a million dollar house. It could be fame (or notoriety) or it could be the satisfaction of helping your neighbor. It could be knowing your natural talents are well utilized or expressing something within yourself to others. It could even be increasing awareness of a cause or issue you're passionate about. I find that motivation strongly influences what sector you work in. People in the private sector GENERALLY are motivated by money, fame, greed, just paying the bills or sometimes utilizing their talents. By contrast, people in the public sector GENERALLY are motivated by a desire to help others, advancing a cause, or utilizing their talents for the greater good. This is a gross generalization but it IS perpetuated by the contrast in pay and benefits between the two sectors. You're realistically much more likely to get rich in the private sector so you have a greater need of a deeper motivation to work in the public sector. (Side note: This is a contrast in intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation. Yes, Uncle Sam, your dollars are going to good use...I am learning something in school!) One is not necessarily better than the other. It's just a difference I find significant in this conversation.
If you are intrinsically (greater good) motivated and you decide you want to leave your job as a regulator to work for the people you've been regulating, are you still serving the greater good? Or has your motivation changed? Maybe the regulating job just wasn't paying you enough to pay your bills and the new job can offer more. Maybe you were in the wrong job to begin with. If you are extrinsically (in it for the cash) motivated and you move from a job on Wall Street to a job at the Fed, can you handle the cut in pay or are you suddenly more motivated to help people? I think the danger here is that people who move FROM the private sector to the public sector are still mostly motivated by money and fame-not helping the American people. The people who are wooed from their job in the public sector to work in the private sector were likely in the wrong sector to begin with OR were working there until they could move to private employment (which also might involve the promise of a job later on...thus influencing their public sector job in favor of the private employer they're supposedly policing).
Another issue within this concept I've been thinking about is what someone from the private sector can offer the public sector. I have an odd fascination with both FDR (and Eleanor Roosevelt) and the Kennedy family. Joe Kennedy's (the father of JFK) first influential position was as the first chairman of the SEC. When the stock market crashed, Kennedy was interestingly not effected negatively. He had been a part of the manipulation and calculation which had brought the thing down! FDR purposefully hired an "inside man" to reform the financial system. Who better to understand what is wrong with the system than someone who helped corrupt it? This was perhaps one of the early examples of cooptation and from my understanding something in which FDR was a pioneer. It worked and was a good move. Kennedy got out after a few years and laid some important groundwork. It advanced his public career (which was undoubtedly extrinsically motivated in that he desired to be famous and ultimately, the president...which of course was later fulfilled in his son) as well. But how many of us would be comfortable today with a Wall Street insider running the SEC? Well, it's what we have in many government agencies but we frequently grouse about it. I think the grousing is justified and this example catches my mind because it worked so well but I think it set a dangerous precedent.
What do you think? Is cooptation a dangerous practice or a positive working relationship between public and private sectors?
I've been thinking a lot about cooptation lately (wow! what does that say about me!?!). I really understand the thinking behind it. There are only a limited number of experts in a given field and undoubtedly both the private and public sectors want to utilize them. Sometimes this means the private firm wants to hire away the expert who has thus far worked for the government. Sometimes this means the government wants to use the private sector's expertise to carry out programs for them. There are lots of variations of these situations but I think the the original premise remains the same. However, I also see lots of problems with cooptation-or at least potential problems.
One problem I see is motivation. Everyone has motivation for doing what they do. That motivation could be paying your mortgage or having a million dollar house. It could be fame (or notoriety) or it could be the satisfaction of helping your neighbor. It could be knowing your natural talents are well utilized or expressing something within yourself to others. It could even be increasing awareness of a cause or issue you're passionate about. I find that motivation strongly influences what sector you work in. People in the private sector GENERALLY are motivated by money, fame, greed, just paying the bills or sometimes utilizing their talents. By contrast, people in the public sector GENERALLY are motivated by a desire to help others, advancing a cause, or utilizing their talents for the greater good. This is a gross generalization but it IS perpetuated by the contrast in pay and benefits between the two sectors. You're realistically much more likely to get rich in the private sector so you have a greater need of a deeper motivation to work in the public sector. (Side note: This is a contrast in intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation. Yes, Uncle Sam, your dollars are going to good use...I am learning something in school!) One is not necessarily better than the other. It's just a difference I find significant in this conversation.
If you are intrinsically (greater good) motivated and you decide you want to leave your job as a regulator to work for the people you've been regulating, are you still serving the greater good? Or has your motivation changed? Maybe the regulating job just wasn't paying you enough to pay your bills and the new job can offer more. Maybe you were in the wrong job to begin with. If you are extrinsically (in it for the cash) motivated and you move from a job on Wall Street to a job at the Fed, can you handle the cut in pay or are you suddenly more motivated to help people? I think the danger here is that people who move FROM the private sector to the public sector are still mostly motivated by money and fame-not helping the American people. The people who are wooed from their job in the public sector to work in the private sector were likely in the wrong sector to begin with OR were working there until they could move to private employment (which also might involve the promise of a job later on...thus influencing their public sector job in favor of the private employer they're supposedly policing).
Another issue within this concept I've been thinking about is what someone from the private sector can offer the public sector. I have an odd fascination with both FDR (and Eleanor Roosevelt) and the Kennedy family. Joe Kennedy's (the father of JFK) first influential position was as the first chairman of the SEC. When the stock market crashed, Kennedy was interestingly not effected negatively. He had been a part of the manipulation and calculation which had brought the thing down! FDR purposefully hired an "inside man" to reform the financial system. Who better to understand what is wrong with the system than someone who helped corrupt it? This was perhaps one of the early examples of cooptation and from my understanding something in which FDR was a pioneer. It worked and was a good move. Kennedy got out after a few years and laid some important groundwork. It advanced his public career (which was undoubtedly extrinsically motivated in that he desired to be famous and ultimately, the president...which of course was later fulfilled in his son) as well. But how many of us would be comfortable today with a Wall Street insider running the SEC? Well, it's what we have in many government agencies but we frequently grouse about it. I think the grousing is justified and this example catches my mind because it worked so well but I think it set a dangerous precedent.
What do you think? Is cooptation a dangerous practice or a positive working relationship between public and private sectors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)