We've heard it all before. Corporations want to tell us that they get us. They know what we are thinking, what we are feeling, what we need. And, of course, they have the solution. This year, with its StrongMoms Empower campaign and StrongMoms Empower Summit (happening tomorrow in New York City), Similac (an infant formula brand) is trying to position itself as a leader in creating a more supportive and less judgmental environment for moms.

Do you think you've heard this before? Possibly, you've heard it from other moms in the social media community who have been preaching it and practicing it for years. Possibly, you've heard it from Best for Babes. Their credo, which they wrote about on their site in 2009 (yes, 4 years before Similac decided to co-opt it) is:

Our Credo:

ALL moms deserve to make a truly informed feeding decision and to be cheered on, coached and celebrated without pressure, judgment or guilt.

ALL breastfeeding moms deserve to achieve their personal breastfeeding goals without being undermined by cultural & institutional “Booby Traps “.

You'll notice Similac co-opted the first part of this, while ignoring the second part. Why is that? It is because they are a big part of the cultural and institutional "booby traps" that Best for Babes wrote about and that I've written about numerous times on this site (see societal barriers to breastfeeding or why do moms quit breastfeeding?). Of course formula companies don't want the moms who use their products to be subject to pressure, judgment or guilt (especially if that makes people afraid to use their products), because they only want there to be warm fuzzy feelings as it relates to their product. But make no mistake, they are not here to support your breastfeeding goals. They are here to slowly undermine your breastfeeding goals with deceptive advertising and unsolicited samples sent to the homes of breastfeeding moms.

It's Just More 'Mompaganda'

Similac doesn't really care about supporting moms. They want moms to think that they care about them. They want moms to feel good about using their product, not guilty. They want moms to get 'warm fuzzies' when they think about Similac, instead of having negative feelings of shame, guilt, or judgment. That isn't horrible, except that their true motivation is to increase sales, not to support moms.

In her guest post on my blog, Carly Stasko wrote about Mompaganda. She wrote:

The logic behind the motherhood brand is simple. Most moms care about the health, happiness and future of their children, and so a “mom-approved” company appears to embrace the same parental values by association. Mothers are seen to be discerning and cautious and safety-oriented. So by extension we conclude, even unconsciously, that a product advocated by other moms must have undergone some kind of vetting.

...

I’ve learned from my early days as a mom that the best guidance comes from parents on the same learning curve as me. Marketing that activates the “mom-brand” to sell products exploit the sense of trust and solidarity that arises naturally between parents.

Similac empowers moms. Moms speak positively about Similac to other moms who trust them. Other moms buy into it. It is a simple concept.

Writing today on the Broad Side about the Similac campaign, Kimberly Seals Allers (who writes Mocha Manual) wrote that When Big Pharma 'Strong' Arms Moms, We All Lose:

Please forgive me for being suspect. It is certainly true that there is way too much pressure on mothers today, and we all could take a proverbial “chill pill” on the mommy-bashing. But when a multi-million dollar pharmaceutical giant (Similac is owned by Abbott Laboratories) plows millions of dollars into telling mothers to be “strong” and “non-judgmental,” I think I’m rightfully engaged in a side-eye glance.

Selling women messages that sound good on the surface but actually undermine them has been a corporate tactic since at least the 1950s. We aren’t really being supported to be strong moms–whatever that means anyway — we are being sold the idea of “strong” as a marketing tool for corporate interests. There’s a big difference and all parents should take note of the dangerous undercurrents.

What I typically find most insulting is that these corporations are counting on moms not knowing better. That we are so weary from the pressures of motherhood, that we will hang on to any messaging that appears to be a “release valve” without delving one centimeter beneath the surface to find the real facts.

Apparently “strong” does not mean savvy.

But a lot of moms won't see it that way. Instead of being insulted by the way that corporations are trying to co-opt them to do marketing for free, they'll be insulted by the fact that someone objects to the campaign. They'll side with the corporation instead of siding with their fellow moms. How's that for coming full circle on the supportive environment?

Support That Isn't Trying to Profit From You

Struck by the similarities between what Similac is trying to say in its campaign and what Best for Babes has been saying for years, I asked Bettina Forbes and Danielle Rigg, the founders of Best for Babes, to comment on it. They told me:

The problem with the StrongMoms Empower campaign is that it continues to throw mothers to the wolves when it comes to overcoming the Booby Traps(R) that undermine them every day. It keeps the onus on isolated mothers to jump the barbed wire, instead of putting pressure on the 360 degree world around them to demand that mothers get the support and care they need and deserve. Moms already know what is best for themselves and their families; what moms don't have are enough hospitals, pediatricians, ob-gyns, family members, friends, health professionals, employers and welcoming public spaces to help them succeed without pressure, judgment or guilt.

The C.A.R.E.-WHO Alliance is the first alliance of businesses that have pledged to truly protect healthy infant feeding by (C) cheering on moms, (A) accepting them without judgment, pressure and guilt, (R) referring them to independently certified and qualified feeding specialists, providing (E) evidence-based information, and upholding the WHO-CODE. The Alliance does not give lip service to supporting and "empowering" moms while undermining their decisions and efforts at the same time. The C.A.R.E.-WHO Alliance rewards businesses and professionals who step up to the plate to help moms make informed feeding decisions and to help them achieve their personal goals, whatever those are.

The C.A.R.E.-WHO Alliance supports ALL moms. While an estimated 85% (CDC) of expecting moms want to breastfeed, not all moms want to or can breastfeed, and should be respected for their decision. Sometimes the barriers to breastfeeding are so overwhelming that it is simply not a feasible option. Mothers who cannot or choose not to breastfeed deserve better access to donor milk from an HMBANA human milk bank (currently cost is prohibitive for all but the most fragile infants), they deserve information on informal milk sharing, and they deserve information on the proper preparation of infant formula.

Expecting and new moms need the C.A.R.E.-WHO Alliance in the same way that they need to know which car seats are safe, who are the best pediatricians, and which blogs are trustworthy. What they don't need is a sham badge or pat on the back from the very companies who are largely responsible for, and profiting from, their misery; companies that have systematically spread misinformation and set up a gauntlet of Booby Traps(R) everywhere mothers turn. If you believe that ALL parents deserve the best information on infant feeding, and deserve to be cheered on, coached and celebrated without pressure, judgment or guilt, make your voice heard! If you believe that every parent deserves to achieve their personal feeding goals without being Booby-Trapped(R), whether that goal is to breastfeed for 2 days, 2 months, or 2 years; and/or pump breastmilk, feed donor milk, or feed infant formula, then join us to grow the C.A.R.E.-WHO alliance! We don't have millions in marketing budgets, but we are a core of compassionate and passionate advocates who believe in mothers and babies' rights to health and happiness.

Where will you stand? With a company with a huge marketing budget and shareholders who are highly vested in getting you on board? Or with a nonprofit that truly wants to help moms meet their own goals? I know which one will make me stronger.

I started my first job before I'd reached double digits, working in the family business, doing jobs that ranged from mind-numbing to challenging. I started my first business at about age 12, offering private skating lessons at the local rink and later private swimming lessons in people's homes. I got top marks in school from elementary school all the way up to graduating second in my class in my MBA program, while also working part-time, volunteering, and being President of one of the campus clubs. I chose jobs, not based on the initial salary or job title, but based on the potential for personal and career growth. I raised my hand and offered to solve problems and take on challenges, even especially if it was something I didn't have any direct experience with.

I grabbed on to the sum of my immense privilege and my abilities and I leaned in. Hard.

From the time I started my career (i.e. first post-MBA full-time job) at 23 until the time my son was born when I was 29, I went after every opportunity. I sat at the table, I raised my hand, I said "yes, I can do that", and I spoke with authority (even when I felt insecure). Two years into my career, and six months into a new job in a new field, I told my boss that I thought the company needed a new Director and that I should be that Director. She agreed. A couple of years later, I was a Vice President. During the six years from the start of my career until the birth of my first born, I had more than doubled my salary, had a great team working for me, and was respected by my managers, staff, clients, competitors and other people in my network.

I had leaned in, and it had paid off.

Can we be good parents and good workers too?

As you've probably already guessed, this post isn't just about me. It is about Sheryl Sandberg's book Lean In:  Women, Work and the Will to Lead. In the book, Sandberg writes:

The ideal worker is defined as someone always available for work, and the 'good mother' is defined as always available to her children.

I had never heard of Sheryl Sandberg when my son was born, nor did I know much about the so called 'mommy wars' that I was about to wade into, but I did know that continuing to climb up the corporate ladder wasn't for me. I didn't want to feel like I was sneaking out early if I wanted to be home for dinner with my family. I didn't want phone calls from my boss at home in the evening to wake the baby. I didn't want to have to ask anyone for permission to attend my child's school play or ask for time off to take my child to a doctor's appointment. This wasn't about living up to corporate or societal expectations, it was about recognizing that I couldn't be the employee I wanted to be, the mother I wanted to be, and the human being I wanted to be. Something had to give.

So, I opted out.

A couple of months into my maternity leave, I contacted the company and I told them that I wouldn't be coming back. I wasn't choosing to stay at home full-time, but I was choosing to chart my own path. I started my own consulting business.

At first, I was nervous. My partner had just started his first post-law-school job, which he wasn't enjoying and where he wasn't being paid the salary he had hoped for. What if no one wanted to use my services? If my business failed, then what? But it turns out I was nervous for nothing. Not only did I have no trouble getting contracts (thanks to the leaning in I'd done before my son was born), but I also didn't have to give a significant chunk of my billings to someone else or to corporate overhead. I could take on as much or as little as I wanted to. I ended up making more money, while taking at least eight weeks of vacation each year.

I rejected the 'ideal worker' expectations. I think the expectation of constant availability or of a bum in a seat from 9 to 5 or 7 to 7 or whatever it might be is counterproductive. I made a decision in my consulting business to take on work that was based on outcomes or deliverables, not based on putting in time. Sure, I would gladly meet with clients, but at a mutually convenient time, not at their beck and call. Sure, I would put in long hours to get work done and meet deadlines, but I got to choose how to allocate that time. I know there are some corporate environments that work like that too, but they are few and far between, so I created one for myself. I probably work more hours in total than the average person in a corporate job, but I also know I take many more days off than they could ever dream of.

This was the only way that I could reconcile the conflict between the ideal worker and the good mother and it turned out to be the best way for so many reasons.

Could I have leaned in anywhere?

A lot of the critique that I've seen of Sanberg's book is that her suggestions are not always realistic. The combination of her privilege, her forward-thinking bosses and work environments, and her seniority at the time she became a mother played a huge role in the success of her tactics. As an example, a junior employee wouldn't have an executive assistant to schedule their last meeting of the day out of the office so that they could go directly home from that meeting and not be seen sneaking out "early" (i.e. in order to be home in time for dinner with the family). A person working a low-wage fast food job wouldn't have many of the luxuries that Sanberg had as she made her choices.  Someone without a nanny might not just want to be home for dinner each night, they might need to be home for dinner each night.

Some of us have more choice than others and those choices, combined with privilege, can make a difference in the success of Sanberg's tactics. For example, when I was doing my MBA I had the opportunity to visit the trading floor of a major Canadian bank in London, England. I asked why there were no women on the trading floor. The executive who was showing us around said, "I don't know. I guess it isn't a job that appeals to a lot of women." He went on to acknowledge, but not really apologize for, the misogyny that women in the industry are faced with. I majored in financial management and it would have made sense for me to go into the financial services industry, possibly working on a trading floor somewhere. In fact, I interviewed for jobs in that field. But I chose not to go that route. I wanted to work somewhere where I would be recognized for my abilities, not somewhere where I'd have to wage war against the patriarchy each and every day.

Yes, we need trailblazers, but I didn't feel that I could be that trailblazer and meet my own goals without burning myself out. I needed to choose the environment that offered me the most potential for growth, not the one where I could break down the most barriers. Sandberg also encourages people to go after growth; but again, I think that is a luxury not everyone can afford. Some people have to choose stability over growth, because they don't have a safety net to fall into if the rocket ship comes crashing down.

What about the men?

In the book, Sandberg does an excellent job talking about the double standards in our gendered society. She writes:

And what about men who want to leave the workforce? If we make it too easy for women to drop out of the career marathon, we also make it too hard for men. Just as women feel that they bear the primary responsibility of caring for their children, many men feel that they bear the primary responsibility of supporting their families financially. Their self-worth is tied mainly to their professional success, and they frequently believe they have no choice but to finish that marathon.

She goes on to talk about a team-building exercise at a company retreat where half of the men in the group listed their children as a hobby. "A hobby?", she writes, "For most mothers, kids are not a hobby. Showering is a hobby." Those are just a few examples of the double standard that she raises throughout the book.

She also talks about creating equality in her own home (albeit with the support of a nanny) and encourages other women to seek that equality too. She even discusses research about the importance of involved fathers in the psychological well-being of children and the impact on their cognitive abilities. However, she doesn't seem to transfer that over to her workplace practices. She writes:

At Facebook, I teach managers to encourage women to talk about their plans to have children and help them continue to reach for opportunities.

This, more than anything, is where I took issue with Sandberg's recommendations. Even if we put the legal and human resources implications of that aside (as she does, while noting the risk), my question would be: What about the men? Why, after everything else she said in the book, would she once again assume that only women need to worry about balancing their childrearing plans with their careers? If she wanted to be part of the solution, she would sit down with the men too and help them find a way to be able to pick their child up at daycare while still going for that promotion, instead of just assuming (as most managers do, and as most men do), that the men would just continue playing the 'ideal worker' role, even after their baby is born.

Sandberg herself says:

When a couple announces that they are having a baby, everyone says “Congratulations!” to the man and “Congratulations! What are you planning on doing about work?” to the woman. The broadly held assumption is that raising their child is her responsibility.

It is a valid critique, and a double-standard she is continuing by encouraging women to think about how they'll combine their career with their family, without encouraging men to do the same. Sandberg also notes that men are more likely than women to negotiate compensation, benefits, titles, and other perks. But I wonder if that extends to things like flexible schedules, working from home, part-time work, needing to leave in time to pick the kids up at day care, and more. Are those thing that men negotiate for? Or are those just 'unreasonable demands' that women make?

It isn't just about individuals

Another critique I've heard of Sandberg's book is that it doesn't address the significant structural issues that prevent women from achieving equality in the workplace and in the home. That is a fair point, but to be fair to Sandberg, she recognizes that and addresses it upfront. She argues that we need to address the external obstacles (structural and societal issues) that keep women from reaching their potential, while also addressing the internal issues (i.e. the things that women do to hold themselves back). She is very explicit about the fact that both are important, but that her book is about the latter. From that perspective, I think the book is very good and could be useful to a lot of women in a lot of different work environments, even if it isn't universally applicable or appealing.

I want to hear from you. Did you read Sanberg's book? What did you think? What has helped you succeed in your career while also raising a family?