IBJNews

ROSENTHAL: Women still struggle for opportunities to lead

June 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

RosenthalIn the early 1970s, when I was studying at Barnard College in New York City, I worked as a bartender.

One evening, while tending bar at the launch party for a new magazine, I stood chatting with a group of women when another woman joined us.

“I don’t think we’ve met,” she said. I introduced myself, then added, “I’m only the bartender.” To which Gloria Steinem, there to launch Ms. magazine, responded, “But you are also a person.”

I thought of that story when I read “Lean In,” the best-seller by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. When I met Steinem, women fought for basic opportunities. Today, they fight for opportunities to lead. Still, much of the fight is essentially the same.

My first reaction to “Lean In” was, “How dare you lay guilt on top of what women already carry.” Then, I realized Sandberg’s messages aren’t different from lessons I learned during my career.

For example, Sandberg says women must be ambitious. For me, this came naturally. My mother never got to go to college or have a career but she instilled in me the importance of having my own life. It never occurred to me that I might get married and never work again.

Then I had children and discovered another “calling.” By working part time when my children were young, I stayed connected to my industry and built my resume.

Sandberg also tells women to accept help. I agree. Anyone—female or male—who wants to succeed should have help.

My husband has always been a partner in the effort to make our home life as successful as our careers. Once he even came with me on a business trip to care for a nursing baby while I was in meetings. When the kids were small, we scrimped so we could pay someone to clean the house and help get meals on the table so when we got home, we could focus on the children.

No job is more important than raising children, but a mother’s work may also be essential to bearing the heavy cost of higher education, as it was in my case. If for that reason alone, mothers today cannot separate their role as nurturer at home from their role as provider in the workplace.

Certainly, the changes since the 1970s show progress—for women and men. Back then, only women worried about how to balance career and family. Today, men do, too. Think about it: In the 1970s, would we have heard a man decline to run for president because of the impact the race would have on his family? Not likely, but that’s exactly what Mitch Daniels did.

The problem is, despite our strides, stories like Mitch’s and, yes, mine are still rare.

In fact, as Sandberg points out, “In the United States, women have had 14 percent of the top corporate jobs and 17 percent of the board seats for 10 years.” In other words, we got to that level 10 years ago and stagnated—but not because women aren’t “leaning in.” They’re earning more graduate and undergraduate degrees, and they’re getting more lower-level jobs. Still, the top-level jobs are rare.

Why? Because, as much as women should “lean in,” our culture needs to meet them halfway. Only when women have equal opportunities, the flexibility they need in critical years, collaborative support and a fair shot at higher-paying jobs will they be able to fully share financial and family responsibilities at home.•

__________

Rosenthal is president and CEO of Conner Prairie Interactive History Park. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • wonderfully said
    Great perspective. I've found since reading Lean In that most women with careers and families have fascinating stories of how they've been able to do it. I'm beyond grateful to have a husband step out of the workforce for 3+ years to care for our children full time.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT