Among my favorite interviews for the book was Richard Parsons, then CEO of Time-Warner.  One of the most accomplished men in the country, I also found him to be one of the most down-to-earth and forthcoming.  He not only credited his wife for much of his success, he was able to give very specific examples of what she has done over the years and what she continues to do to give him an edge in his work.

"I'm certain I would not have followed the career track that I ended up following if it hadn't been for my wife...I can expose her to problems and issues and she will ask very sound baseline questins that cause me to think about it in a different light...I very much need Laura's input," said Parsons during our conversation.

So it comes as little surprise that a beleaguered Citigroup recently turned to Parsons to help them overcome some of the challenges they are facing, naming him Chairman of the Board.  I wonder if shareholders have considered what Laura Parsons is likely doing in the background to support her husband that will benefit the company as well.

I’m being asked a lot these days whether there’s any point in discussing how women can help their husbands achieve greater career success. “Won’t this economy force many moms who work part-time or less back into full-time jobs,” and “Won’t most young women with children now realize that staying home is no longer a financial option,” media types inquire.

My answer is—that depends. If a wife sees her role in the family as only a mother and plans to focus her efforts solely on that front, then of course in these times of layoffs, loss of benefits, and forced leave without pay, her husband could be a casualty. And she will likely be forced back to 40+ hours a week in an office.

However, at-home moms and mostly-at-home moms who view their husband’s career as a family enterprise—say, the earning arm of the family project—have a lot to offer that can help keep their husbands from becoming victims of layoffs and downsizing. In fact, studies show that married men tend to weather corporate upheaval much better than their single counterparts, experiencing less job loss and less loss of income. Reading an article about Michelle Obama’s efforts to rally the public behind her husband’s economic plans reminded me why this is so often the case.

“In her first weeks in the White House, Obama has been the gracious hostess and loyal spouse, welcoming visitors to the Executive Mansion and accompanying President Barack Obama to a prayer breakfast and to a charter school to read to second-graders. But in a departure from her predecessor, Obama has also begun promoting bills that support her husband's policy priorities…Last week, she supported the economic stimulus bill on her visit to the housing agency and another to the Department of Education.

Obama plans to visit all the cabinet-level agencies on her tour to listen to and get to know Washington in the coming weeks, her aides say. They said she relished the chance to serve as one of the president's chief surrogates on critical policy matters.”

(read the rest here.)

Now, whether you agree or disagree with the stimulus package is not the point. The point is that most political pundits agree that President Obama is in a precarious position. He has taken over leadership during one of the worst economies of our time. The public is nervous and, as polling shows, not at all convinced the stimulus package is the answer. Some pundits are already positing that if he can’t turn things around within in a year, his party runs the risk of losing their majority in 2010 and Obama runs the risk of being a one-term president.

Michelle Obama has clearly made it priority prevent this possibility and is doing what she can to support her husband’s proposals within the bounds of what the public considers suitable. She’s practicing savvy public relations.

For example, she is not making policy or heading up anything in an official capacity as Hilary Clinton did in the early months of her husband’s administration—a move that understandably proved very unpopular with American public. Rather she is approaching the public in a way that most people perceive as entirely appropriate—she is being a persuasive spokesperson for her husband, a cheerleader if I dare term it that way. And she is gathering the knowledge she needs to defend his plans to critics and allies alike.

Obviously, most wives won’t be called on to address a national audience to support their husband’s careers. But they can be willing to network at every opportunity—maintaining important social connections and attending company functions. They can practice effective public relations, talking their husbands up to people in a position to be helpful. They can be willing to learn about their husband’s day to day work responsibilities—brainstorming contributions a man may make in his job that can protect him from layoffs.

Being the woman beside the man not only isn’t obsolete in economies like ours, it is vital. And one of the blessings that may come of it is that many women may realize that their husbands need them just as much as their children do.

In a story published on Jan. 2, the Washington Post takes an in-depth look at how some mothers around the D.C. metropolitan area are impacting politics.  The story itself is mildly informative, but the most interesting thing is the tone of the piece, which seems to imply that political activism among full-time moms is a new development:

"About a dozen mothers who banded together to battle the county's hard-line position on immigration are now among the area's most civically engaged residents. They attend board meetings and influence votes...And they do much of it with children in tow," the reporter writes.

Moms, particuarly stay-at-home moms, have always been on the forefront of political activism.  If for no other reason than they have more time to devote to civic activities.  They have always been the majority attending school board meetings, participating in the PTA, and organizing charity drives and outreach ministries through their churches.   Whatever side they take, moms have always been vocal on the hottest of hot-button issues, whether it be abortion, poverty, marriage, or the war.  And much more than many other politically-engaged individuals, they put their money where their mouths are, backing their opinions up with action.

How one of the leading papers in the country can overlook that fact is mind-boggling.  It is a bit disappointing that  the Washington Post only seems to recognize the impact of the women in this story because the position they've taken agrees with that of the paper's own editorial board.

One of the things that many of the wives I interviewed for the book were very good at that I still struggle with is managing family finances.  I've never been a budgeter, a coupon cutter, or a bargain shopper as my girlfriends can all attest.  Yet many successful men told me that one of the things they most appreciated about their wives while they were climbing up the ladder was how she was able to keep the family living within its means.  As these husbands explained, it wasn't just a matter of saving money (though that undoubtedly helped too) it was a matter of alleviating the mental and emotional distress of money problems.  Because these men’s minds weren’t distracted by immediate worries of how they were going to pay their bills or climb out of debt, they were free to focus on future goals and how to achieve them.

Now, obviously, in tough economic times like these some financial pain can be impossible to avoid and both spouses bear the responsibility of being good stewards of their money together.  But statistics show that women make the vast majority of the purchasing decisions in the house.  We decide how much to spend and on what, and the decisions we make can have a direct impact on how much attention our husbands are able to give to pursuing the brass ring in their chosen fields.

This is particularly relevant for those of us wives who, whether because we’re full-time moms or because our jobs are more flexible, spend more time at home than our husbands.  It only makes sense that we would take on the task of  setting and sticking to a responsible budget.  So one of only a few resolutions I've made this year is to change my free-spending ways. I’ve joined the Grocery Game to cut our food bills, created a budget Dave Ramsey would be proud of, and pledged to my husband that I will take on the responsibility of making his life easier by making our money go farther.  Anyone else want to join me?

 

Okay, well, maybe not gangs, but gang-style behavior.  According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the most notorious sites for police calls these days isn't a bar, but kid-favorite, Chuck E. Cheese.  Apparently the "family-friendly" destination can bring out the worst in "mama bear" instincts.  The Journal reports on everything from disordely conduct to violent assault, most sparked by the moms on the premises.

In Brookfield, Wis., no restaurant has triggered more calls to the police department since last year than Chuck E. Cheese's.

Officers have been called to break up 12 fights, some of them physical, at the child-oriented pizza parlor since January 2007. The biggest melee broke out in April, when seven officers arrived and found as many as 40 people knocking over chairs and yelling in front of the restaurant's music stage, where a robotic singing chicken and the chain's namesake mouse perform...

Fights among guests are an issue for all restaurants, but security experts say they pose a particular problem for Chuck E. Cheese's, since it is designed to be a haven for children. Law-enforcement officials say alcohol, loud noise, thick crowds and the high emotions of children's birthday parties make the restaurants more prone to disputes than other family entertainment venues...

In Toledo, Ohio, four women were charged with disorderly conduct after a melee erupted at a Chuck E. Cheese's there last year. According to police reports, it started when parents complained to the restaurant manager that children were loitering at the drawing machine. The children were Barbie Clifton's daughters, then 14 and 10 years old. Ms. Clifton had come out of the bathroom when she saw a woman yelling at her daughters and her friend.

"I thought, 'Oh my God, what's happening here?'" says the 42-year-old stay-at-home mom. "Instead of [the woman] going to the parent or going to the manager, she was calling my friend and daughters all of those names."

That touched off a fight between more than 10 people, in which participants punched and screamed at each other. One woman removed the red rope that marks the entrance queue and handed it to another woman, who swung the metal clip attached to it at others involved in the incident.

"I thought they were going to start attacking me," says Sheri Kellar-Raab, the first officer who responded.

One of the women I interviewed for the book was Kathleen Matthews, wife of MSNBC Hardball host, Chris Matthews.  Kathleen shared a lot of wonderful insights about Chris' career and how she helped him take on the challenges that led to his current position as one of the most recognized figures in broadcasting. In particular, Kathleen talked about the importance of her willingness to support Chris through various transitions in his work life.  Matthews started out first as a political staffer, then a speechwriter, then a newspaper reporter, and now a top TV host.

As Kathleen shared, shifting gears so often wasn't easy, and it meant some financial sacrifices in the beginning.  But she says she was always willing to encourage her husband to move into a new field as long as it made use of his particular strenghts and talents.  Now it looks like Matthews may be gearing up to make yet another transition. Rumor has it he is preparing to leave his post at Hardball to make a run for the Senate.  It will certainly be interesting to see how successful Matthews is in this venture, but you can be sure Kathleen will be doing everything she can to help her husband achieve his goal.

It seems Michelle Obama's statements about what her role will be in the White House is sparking the same old arguments amongst media types.

Salon's Rebecca Traister was one of the first to object to reports focusing on Michelle Obama as a wife and mother rather than a former lawyer and hospital administrator:

"The Associated Press wondered what kind of first lady Michelle will be, and concludes, 'the kind of first lady this country has not seen in decades.' You mean, the kind with a high-powered job? No, 'the mother of young children.' True enough, and the AP story did include the fact that Michelle is known to be her husband's closest advisor. But it made sure to emphasize the campaign's assertions that 'she is not interested in shaping policy or reserving a seat for herself at her husband's decision-making table. She prefers, at least for now, to focus on easing the transition for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 -- getting them in new schools, settled and comfortable with a new way of life.' Indeed, Michelle herself has been flogging the term 'mom-in-chief' as the cheerily unthreatening title she'll assume when she gets to the White House.

It seems unlikely most women across America will take the offense Traister does.  More are likely to respond to her, as Slate writer Melinda Henneberger does:

But why is a focus on her role as a wife and mother assumed to be just for show? Is she required to regard being a hands-on mom and first spouse as small potatoes just because she's in every way an equal partner to the president-elect and attended schmantzy schools...Is there a woman (or man) alive who wouldn't gladly take a few years off to advise and support the president?

Can smart, strong women not choose traditional roles? Everything I know about Michelle Obama tells me that this really is her choice, not her consolation prize." 

Okay, well, not all of it.  But it's interesting that in the last few days I've come across several articles about A-list actresses saying they'd like to spend most of their time staying home with their kids.

Angelina Jolie told the BBC that she plans to fade away from acting, perhaps only doing a project every few years to give her greater time to enjoy her family.  In the same week, Nicole Kidman also expressed an interest in cutting back her career to stay home and have more children. 

Even fresh-faced up-and-coming star Rachel Bilson, who has yet to start a family, is saying that the long-besmirched label "housewife" may be in her future.  The star of movies like Jumper, Last Kiss, and New York, I Love You told a reporter, "I've always been maternal. I want to travel and enjoy myself first, but I really want a family. I love the career I have chosen. But I'd be quite happy as a housewife, at home with the kids. I think I'd be really content."

Of course, this could just be another one of those things that actresses say without really meaning to grab headlines, but it's hard to imagine A-list stars being comfortable expressing such sentiments in the 80s or even 90s when feminist political correctness reigned supreme.  More likely, they are being influenced by the opinions of regular moms.  Polling shows the vast majority of moms--80 percent--now say they don't want to work full time, a big increase from the previous two decades.  And the opt-out trend is proving that women are far less apologetic about making wife and mother their primary titles.

So for once it looks like Hollywood may be following the trend rather than setting it.

And I'm going to have to borrow the wonderful quote Stephanie has on her blog as the profound thought of the day:

A woman must share her husband's love with his work and the fire of his spirit, or make him a thing not lovable. 

~J.R.R. Tolkien

Sports wives live in a different universe than many of us whose husband's have more conventional jobs.  Their husband's schedules are so rigid--they spend so much time on the road and the training is so demanding--that in many cases, these wives have no choice but to become a "right hand woman."  It's either that or live totally separate lives from their husbands, and who wants that out of marriage? 

Plus, so much of athletic success depends on what's going on in the players' heads, many of the sports wives I interviewed found that taking over certain tasks for their men freed the men up mentally to perform better on the court, course, or field.  For example, Kim Johnson, wife of Master's Champion Zack Johnson, says her ability to act as accountant, press secretary, and, sometimes, therapist to her husband could account for how radically his game improved after they married.

Recently I read about another woman who is taking Kim's example to heart.  Stephanie Perrault is married to pitcher Josh Perrault who currently plays in the Washington Nationals' minor league system.  Anyone looking at the list of responsiblities Stephanie takes on could hardly liken her to some outdated notion of a fifties housewife.  Few executive jobs demand as wide a range of skills and coordination as Stephanie's job of helping Josh progress in baseball does...

She and Josh and still in their twenties and quite young in their careers.  But no doubt, in the coming years their combined efforts will pay off, and we will soon be cheering Josh Perrault on in the Major Leagues!

(and boy do I know about that moving and housing coordination, Stephanie.  As often as we have to move for Brian's broadcasting opportunities, we are in the same boat!)