Mommy Track Essay

The prompt asks that we discuss the ways the media perpetuated the erroneous idea about the “mommy track” (Woods 2011, p265). I have spent more time reading, thinking and writing about this paragraph than anything in recent memory. In the book, Woods makes the following claims:
• Newspapers reported on an article by Felice Schwartz in 1989 in the Harvard Business review and did so in a biased way. The media came up with the term “mommy track” and assigned to it additional meaning such as proof a woman’s place is in the home (Wood’s, p265).
• There was a retraction by Schwartz later but the media did not cover the retraction because it “did not support the media’s bias regarding roles” (Woods, 2011).
• Woods identifies Schwartz as a “management consultant”, that her article “was speculative” and that this position was later retracted. I am not a trained economist but
The first group works from age 25 to 55 without taking any more time off than the allotted company paid vacation. This group is available and more open to relocation opportunities, is willing to work extra shifts if needed and take on new projects. The second group of workers are in the same age bracket but take on average 2 extended leaves during their working career and those absences are an average of 6 months long. In addition to those block leaves of absence, this second group of workers limits the amount of work they do so they can be available for other responsibilities. Now ask – Which group of workers provides more economic output or value to the employer? In this experiment, all things being equal, it would be easy to see how the first group provides a greater economic value to the employer. Understanding that, would it be more beneficial if companies recognized this difference and created different tracks for “career primary” and “career and family”? Paths that presented positive outcomes for both