A silver lining for the Manifesto

The past few weeks at work have been eventful, to say the least. Much has come out in the news about a doc that a now ex-employee wrote, and much discussion has happened about the doc internally as well.

A lot of my women colleagues feel angry, depressed and hurt by the doc (To be fair, most men are against it too). Some men on the other hand dont see anything wrong with what the doc advocates. And thats leaving the women even more hurt and angry, because that proves this is a general notion that men have, rather than the author of the doc being an isolated case.

I am writing this down to clear my own views about the contents of the doc. I dont agree with it - as a woman, its only natural that I feel that way.

But I am not hurt or angry about it. I was a little surprised by it, I will admit to that. I did not think that men from developed countries thought this way - I had associated these types of ideas with men from countries like India. It was eye opening to see that this was not quite the case.

Personally though, I think the doc helped me.

I am pregnant with my second child, and I think often about whether I am prioritizing the right things.. I wonder if am I being a selfish mommy who wants to have a serious job when I could sit at home and be with my children all day long. I wonder if am I being selfish to pursue my own interests. I wonder if I am neglecting my children by not spending every waking moment with them. I wonder whether it would be better for me to quit.

But the contents of that doc, and some of the responses from men who used to think like that made me realize that a lot of them grow up with this attitude because their mothers did not work outside the home. In my view, there is only one way to change that - and that is to get more women to be in the workplace so the next generation has fewer people who believe this. I think I came to this conclusion because my husband is so supportive of my work - and I think the reason he is that way is because his own mother worked as an engineer until she retired at age 55. 

So now I look at my work as not just something I do for myself - it is something I do for my children as well, in order to raise them as supportive, understanding future colleagues, husbands and/or fathers. I look at it as my contribution to society.

And that makes me resolved to stay in the workforce. So thank you, James Damore.

Office of the First Lady.

So much has been said and written already about a lot of President Trump's policies that I will prefer to keep off of those topics.

Today my topic is about the role of Ivanka Trump in her daddy's presidency. It seems to many that her (and perhaps her daddy's administration's) intention is to sweep aside Melania Trump, who seems more than willing to be swept aside as First Lady and instead create a role of a "First Daughter". A lot of comments on Twitter show that this is the popular  sentiment - some comments chide her saying "What the hell are you doing meeting with a foreign leader" and "Unelected women should not get a seat at that particular table". While I completely agree with that sentiment, what I dont get is why people think it is acceptable for a president's wife to join him in his official duties but not the daughter.

I came to America soon after Obama won his first election - and one of the first things I noticed was how much coverage Michelle Obama got on television. She seemed to go with him everywhere, her wardrobe got a lot of attention, and I also realized that prior to him being elected, she even made speeches on his behalf at the Democratic National convention (and so did his opponent's wife). Why are spouses so important to the presidency?

Where I come from, I dont think the spouses of Prime ministers have any role to play - sometimes a picture of them might crop up in a newspaper because they happened to be close by, but its usually just an accident. No one usually bothers even interviewing them, except maybe in a memoir or  an occasional magazine article, perhaps after the tenure is finished.

Here though, its a different game altogether. There is an actual "Office of the First Lady"; they are supposed to be fashion icons, and of course they better be good speakers because they are going to be making speeches all along their husband's tenure. To top it all off, there is the inherent sexism in the title itself, which suggests that the spouse will always be a woman.

It is interesting to note the history of this role. It started with the spouses wanting to be addressed as "Lady", "Mrs. President" etc - it seems to me they were trying to emulate the role of a queen in a country where monarchy was non existent, perhaps trying to mirror the social setup of other countries at the time. But as monarchies elsewhere collapsed and have given way to democracies and none of the other countries have such an "office" for the spouse of their country's premier anymore, does it not make sense to abolish this whole "First Lady" thing and move on? Like Ivanka's criticizers pointed out, they are not elected and should not have a seat at the table. If they have political aspirations, certainly, they can do what Hillary Clinton did - maintain her own political career and try her own hand at the elections.

The existence of such an office only seems to allow the president's immediate family to create a political career of their own if they wish to do so - and that should not really be the case in a true democracy.