FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Does anyone have more information on NOW's reaction to this?

   
Author Topic: Does anyone have more information on NOW's reaction to this?
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elizabeth Vargas, Exiting Stage Center

quote:
What's more, critics question whether Vargas's departure after less than six months as an anchor was entirely voluntary, given declines in "World News Tonight's" ratings and considering that Vargas already had experienced the challenges of balancing work and family years before she became pregnant a second time.

"It seems unlikely to me, having survived and thrived through her first pregnancy, that she would logically give up the top job in TV a few months out, anticipating she couldn't handle it," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "It just doesn't strike me as a logical explanation. I don't think there are too many men who would be happy to be removed from the anchor chair."

Gandy added that ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., "doesn't look like a very woman-friendly or family-friendly workplace."

If you read the whole article, there's no information anywhere to support this take on Vargas's job change other than Gandy's interpretation of the unlikeliness of Vargas's decision.

I could easily see making the decision to switch to a less prestigious but still top-level job, making plenty of money to support my family because the new job was less demanding on my time and energy. Is it really that unlikely?

Is there more to the story than the post is publishing?

Edit: Clearly there's more to the story. What I mean is, is there some evidence that Vargas was forced out?

[ May 29, 2006, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slate has an article with a little more information.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, CT. I'm still confused but in a much more informed manner. [Smile]

The different articles create entirely different impressions about whose idea it was and what actually happened, don't they?

Phrases such as "the insanity of the assertion that a pregnant woman asked to be benched permanently from a major news show (for her second child but not her first)" seem to be making far too broad a statement without something more concrete.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea what to think of this. I would support her choice to make such decisions for herself, and I would also expect that all who partake in this grand circus of media life would be adult enough to allow her to do so graciously.

Criminy. Maybe she did just change her mind. Maybe her husband is going through a gender identity concern, or perhaps her other child suddenly needs more care than expected, or maybe she has just decided that she needs to spend some time each day meditating for religious reasons. There could be any number of [understandably private] reasons why she changed her mind.

[And I would not fault her for keeping mum about such reasons, if that were the case. The old "ah, I left my old job because I needed more opportunity for growth, (aside from the fact that my boss turned into a delusional nitwit who was hyper-obsessed with my personal grooming and his own fetish for coughing up hairballs, that is, but Imnotmentioningthatbit" [/subtext]).]

Sure, I get that this is all going on in a broader context, and such things are worth talking about. Seems to me, though, that it's enough to note: hey, here's something unexpected, guess there could be multiple interpretations, but of course we're likely to never know. Then drop it.

My two cents. [Smile]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boy, that first article is irritating.

[quote...given that Vargas will return to another demanding, but less visible, job...[/quote]

We're given no idea how demanding the second job is in relationship to the first, only that it too is 'demanding'. There's ER surgeon demanding, and there's line-cook demanding, right? We have no idea which status either job is. But the article takes no pains to clarify that, just uses the fact that since the second job is also 'demanding', gender discrimination of some sort is most likely involved.

quote:
"It seems unlikely to me, having survived and thrived through her first pregnancy, that she would logically give up the top job in TV a few months out, anticipating she couldn't handle it," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "It just doesn't strike me as a logical explanation. I don't think there are too many men who would be happy to be removed from the anchor chair."
It seems NOW President Kim Gandy should spend more time doing simple arithmetic and less time politicking, because last I heard, two children were more stressful to raise than just one-which is quite stressful and time-consuming itself, I'm sure. Another little perspective that is completely avoided.

quote:
Gandy added that ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., "doesn't look like a very woman-friendly or family-friendly workplace."
I have no way of gauging the accuracy of this statement, but if she's using the same standards she's using elsewhere in the article to make this judgement, I view it with skepticism. She certainly hasn't done much to prove it, if she's using the same standard.

quote:
... the organizations call Vargas's status "a clear demotion" and characterize it as "a dispiriting return to the days of discrimination against women that we thought were behind us."
It seems to me that all this sort of unsubstantiated rhetoric does is to induce more eye-rolling when many people hear the acronym NOW, which is unfortunate. There is still work to be done that is much less frivolous and more deadly serious than this appears to be.

quote:
But that still leaves NOW's Gandy unsatisfied. "If she can't have it all," she said, "who among us could?"
Is this what NOW's goal is? For women to have it 'all'? Even men can't have it all the way she seems to mean it-balancing a maximized family life along with a maximized work life.

I much prefer the Slate article (thanks as usual, CT:)) which makes paints the situation much more clearly-and ambiguously, as a result.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It seems to me that all this sort of unsubstantiated rhetoric does is to induce more eye-rolling when many people hear the acronym NOW, which is unfortunate. There is still work to be done that is much less frivolous and more deadly serious than this appears to be.

Excellent point in an excellent post. I like to consider myself a feminist, but NOW is starting to rank near PETA on the credibility scale in my book. And that was my thought before reading the article.
Posts: 13679 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sure, I get that this is all going on in a broader context, and such things are worth talking about. Seems to me, though, that it's enough to note: hey, here's something unexpected, guess there could be multiple interpretations, but of course we're likely to never know. Then drop it.
Exactly. To add to your list of maybes, maybe ABC did want to drop her for the ratings and they mutually decided with Vargas to use this as an excuse so she wouldn't have the stigma of being dropped for poor ratings. Hell, maybe ABC is being odious and doesn't want to allow Vargas the time off she needs for childbirth. I can't tell.

I like the Slate article's point that the variety of responses to the situation echoes the split personality this country has as whole and amongst individuals concerning work and parenting.

Edit: Oh, and ditto on what Icarus said.

There are important things to be done with respect to parenthood and career.

[ May 29, 2006, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Icarus, my first thought upon reading the article was "wow, this is smelling like PETA!" [Big Grin]
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd rather not smell PETA, thank you. Nothing you don't cook on the grill can possibly smell good, sez I.

Graaaagh! Rakeesh want rare meat!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the Slate article. A cogent summary, seems to me.


quote:
Everyone is turning Elizabeth Vargas' pregnancy into a referendum on pregnant women in the workplace, and particularly in the media, because it's happening on a big screen in front of us, but also in our homes and our book groups. Vargas isn't just carrying the extra weight of her unborn baby here; she's carrying the weight of a whole nation of people who still see gender in absolute and defining terms. Maybe the reason we can't quite stomach a hugely pregnant news anchor is that we can't even manage to talk coherently about all the ways in which they somehow freak us out.

Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Talk about a tempest in a teapot!
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2