How Women Became America’s Safety Net

Women in the U.S. aren’t just balancing careers and caregiving—they are the invisible backbone of a broken system keeping our economy afloat. In this episode of the VEST Her Podcast, we sat down with Dr. Jessica Calarco, sociologist, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and author of Holding It Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net. 

Moderating this discussion was Monica Barczak, VEST Member and Founder & Principal of Barczak Consulting, where she works with organizations to promote family economic success and well-being. 

Together, they unpacked the hidden burdens placed on women, the systemic challenges that force them into unpaid caregiving roles, and the urgent need for policy reform.

Available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. 

This episode is brought to you by VEST, a peer network for women professionals and investment fund investing in women led companies.

This conversation was part of a more intimate coaching session with VEST Members and has been repurposed to accommodate this episode. If you'd like to learn more about joining our peer community, go to www.vesther.co to learn more.

Women as the Default Safety Net

Dr. Calarco’s book, Holding It Together, sheds light on a troubling reality: when government and workplace policies fall short, women step in to fill the gaps—often at great personal and financial cost. She explained how this phenomenon is not just a result of individual choices but rather a deeply ingrained expectation in American society.

“In the U.S., when someone loses a job, falls ill, or can’t afford childcare, we don’t have a strong safety net to catch them,” she explained. “Instead, we rely on women—mothers, daughters, sisters, friends—to step in. This isn’t just about personal sacrifice; it’s about systemic failure.”

Compared to other countries with more robust social policies, the U.S. offers little in the way of paid parental leave, affordable childcare, or universal healthcare—leaving women disproportionately responsible for caregiving.

For the full show notes go to www.VESTHer.co/podcast 

Guest Bios

Dr. Jessica Calarco is a sociologist and a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She's an award-winning author, and her most recent book is titled Holding it Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net. She has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and CNN. She writes the Hidden Curriculum newsletter, and she is also a mom of two young kids.

Monica Barczak, is a VEST Member and Founder and Principal, Barczak Consulting, where she works with organizations to promote family economic success and well-being. Prior to establishing her consulting practice, Monica was Director of Community Health Equity at Ascension, where she designed and implemented strategies to reduce health disparities for low-income uninsured adults in Tulsa, Oklahoma. During her tenure, Monica grew the impact of this portfolio from $5 million a year to $12 million a year. Before this, Monica held multiple leadership roles in nonprofit

If you enjoyed the episode share it with a friend, leave us a review and don't forget to hit the subscribe button. If you are ready to take your career and business to the next level, apply to join our community of professional women, all eager to help you get there and stay there. Check out our VEST Membership and apply today! www.V

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Women in the US aren't just balancing careers
and caregiving.
They're the invisible backboneof a broken system that's
keeping our economy afloat.
In this episode of the Vestorpodcast, we sat down with Dr
Jessica Calarco, sociologist andprofessor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and author ofHolding it Together how Women
Became America's Safety Net.

(00:21):
Dr Calarco has written for theNew York Times, the Washington
Post, the Atlantic and CNN.
She also publishes the HiddenCurriculum newsletter, where she
shares research-driven insightson gender work and caregiving.
Moderating this discussion wasMonica Barkzak, best member and
founding principal of BarkzakConsulting, where she works with

(00:43):
organizations to promote familyeconomic success and well-being
.
For our guest's full bios andshow notes, go to wwwvestherco.
Forward slash podcast.
This episode is brought to youby VEST, a peer network of women
professionals and investmentfund investing in women-led
companies.
This conversation was part of amore intimate coaching session

(01:06):
with best members and has beenrepurposed to accommodate this
episode.
If you'd like to learn moreabout joining our peer community
, go to wwwvestherco to learnmore.
If you enjoy the episode, sharewith a friend and don't forget
to leave us a review.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
This wasn't the book that I set out to write.
I thought I was going to bewriting a book on what we might
think of as the best laid plansof motherhood, how women
navigate parenting relateddecisions, especially the more
fraught ones, and what happenswhen things go awry, when we're
not able to make the decisionsthat we set out to in our lives.
But I ended up having my ownsort of best laid plans moment

(01:46):
during the COVID-19 pandemic,which hit in the middle of the
data collection that I was doingfor this project, following
these 250 families over thefirst couple of years of their
children's lives, and it forcedme to figure out, you know, how
to keep the study going, how tokeep collecting data, keep
collecting interviews andsurveys with my own two young
kids at home when the pandemichit not having childcare, not

(02:08):
having schools open and thatexperience, coupled with the
conversations that I got to haveat the time, is what led me to
write the book, because COVIDreally made clear what I think
so many of us have known or feltfor a long time, which is this
idea that other countries havesocial safety nets while the US
has women instead.
And that's really the quotethat I said in an interview

(02:30):
early on when I was developingthis project, and that became
sort of the heart and soul ofthis book.
And what I'm getting at when Isay that is that essentially,
you know, other countries haveinvested in policies that not
only keep people safe in timesof crisis but also help take
care of them day to day.
You know things like healthcare and college and child care
and sick leave and paid familyleave and vacation time and

(02:53):
retirement pensions and eventhings like limits on paid work
hours so that we have time totake care of our families and
ourselves.
And what I found in my researchis that, you know, in the US we
have a long history ofespecially the billionaires and
the big corporations, the ultrawealthy people and the
mechanisms that serve them, thatdon't want to pay for that kind
of social safety net, and soreally in the process, they've

(03:15):
forced us to do what I call DIYsociety instead.
They forced us to take care ofourselves and keep ourselves
safe without being able to relyon the government for support,
and the problem with that isthat we can't actually DIY
society.
Some people, like the childrenand the sick and the elderly,
need help just meeting basicneeds and, at the same time, and

(03:37):
without a decent social safetynet, to be able to make ends
meet financially for ourselves.
The rest of us have to devoteso much of our time to paid work
that we very rarely have theenergy and the time that we need
to take care of ourselves, letalone take care of anyone else
who needs that kind of support.
And so I argue that thispressure is also part of how
this DIY model divides us,because if we want to get ahead

(04:00):
in our own careers or have ashot at financial stability, we
have to figure out ways to pushthe work of care downstream.
We have to find someone, oftensomeone more vulnerable than we
are, to do that kind of work,oftentimes for very little or no
pay, and that's part of how weget gender inequalities, how men
end up pushing the bulk of thepaid you know, the bulk of the

(04:20):
care work onto women, and thenfor women with relatively larger
amounts of privilege, thatoften means outsourcing
childcare, outsourcing homehealthcare for elderly relatives
or outsourcing housecleaning inways that let us get ahead in
our careers but that often do soat the expense of other women,
disproportionately women ofcolor and low-income women in

(04:40):
our society, and essentiallythat's part of how.
What I argue in the book is thatthis DIY model.
It's particularly damaging forthe least privileged among us,
those who have nowhere to turnfor support in being able to
hold it together, and reallynowhere to hide either when
other people ask them to holdeven more.
But at the same time, this DIYmodel really isn't good for

(05:02):
anyone.
It's left our whole countrysicker, sadder and more stressed
than we could be with astronger social safety net, and
it's left even relativelyprivileged women struggling to
feel like we can ever get a realchance at getting a break, let
alone getting ahead.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
We'll come back to the policy part of it in just a
second, but tell us a little bitabout some of the biggest myths
about women and work that endup holding us back.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah, so part of what I try to do with the book is to
lay out not only you know howdid we get here, but what are
the myths that are keeping usfrom changing this, what are the
kinds of ideas that we holdthat prevent us from trying to
build the kind of social safetynet that we know works better in
other contexts?
And one of the myths that Italk about is kind of this idea
of the superwoman.
You know the idea that if womenjust lean in or make the right

(05:53):
choices, they should be able todo it all and to have it all
without relying on anyone elsefor support in the process.
And I show in the book, youknow telling stories of women.
You know high power careerwomen who have bought into this
idea and then the appeal thatthis kind of message has for
them.
You know and it makes sensebecause women especially are so

(06:13):
used to not getting the helpthat they need that it feels
empowering to believe that wecan do it alone, that if we just
make those right choices, if wejust follow that seven step
plan, that there is a way for usto be able to do it all and
have it all without it feelinglike a sacrifice, but at the
same time, and what I show isthat this idea is also deeply
damaging for women, because itdiscourages us from demanding

(06:36):
the help that we desperatelyneed and deserve, and it also
gaslights us into blamingourselves if we're not able to
manage without support.
If we find ourselves struggling, then if we assume that we're
supposed to be this superwoman,we have only ourselves to blame.
And then there's also this flipside of this, in the sense that
this superwoman myth it alsoencourages a sort of learned

(06:57):
helplessness among men.
Many of the men that I talk to,they would tell me things like
this one dad that I talked tohe's like I don't know how my
wife does it.
He's like when she's home withthe kids, she still manages to
answer all her emails and getthe laundry done and make dinner
, and when I'm home with thekids, I can just barely keep
them alive.
You know, let alone getanything else done.
And you know that kind ofreverence or valorization of

(07:18):
women.
It seems sweet, kind of, fromthe outside, but what it does is
it allows men to feel justifiedin pushing all of the unpaid
care work onto women around themyou know which, ultimately and
to do so without feeling asthough they should be guilty
about it, because, oh, if she'sbetter at it, you know, if she
can do all this, then I might aswell just leave it to her.
And that, ultimately, though,ends up reinforcing gender

(07:40):
inequalities and making themseem normal and natural in ways
that ultimately operate to leavewomen with more to do and,
ultimately, less support ingetting it done.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's funny I was thinking about, you know, if
women are talking about this thehelp they get at home, right,
it's like, oh, you know, mypartner slash husband, whatever,
he's really great, he helpswith childcare.
It's like, what do you mean?
He helps with childcare Likehe's the dad.
It shouldn't be helping.
Okay, so I do want to kind ofdig in a little bit more to how

(08:14):
the US safety net compares toother countries, and especially
if you did comparisons more likeindustrialized countries or
what have you.
But I'm kind of also wondering,you know, as you were
describing this leaning into youknow you can have it all.
You should do it all If you cando it.
If you can't do it, you onlyhave yourself to blame.

(08:37):
Like, I think about that a lotin terms of anti-poverty work as
well.
Right, there's this kind of andmaybe it's very particular to
the US this notion ofindividualism that gets us off
the hook about having goodpublic policies, and so it
becomes your responsibility youknow that you can't do this, or
your responsibility that youdon't have enough money, or your

(08:59):
responsibility that your healthis terrible or whatever.
So can you just tell us alittle bit about what your
research found in terms ofcomparing the US to other
countries and our social safetynets that support or don't
support working women.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Yeah, I mean I think that to the point that you're
making.
I mean, one of the other mythsthat I talk about in the book is
it's sort of you can thinkabout it two ways.
You can think about it as themyth of meritocracy, or this
idea that good choices will saveus.
You know this notion that weare all.
You know that we live in asociety where the people who
work the hardest, the people whowant it the most, the people
who are most motivated, that allyou have to do is make those

(09:33):
good choices or have thatmotivation, and that will be
enough to get us ahead.
And you know, I show in thebook how those kinds of
ideologies they sound good onthe surface but they really have
things like racism and sexismand even eugenics at the core,
in the sense that they push usto ignore the deep structural
inequalities that exist in oursociety and that operate to not

(09:56):
only make those quote unquotegood choices easier for some
people to make than for others,but that also, you know, even
for people who are oftentimes in, you know, systematically
marginalized or more difficultpositions, that even when they
do make those quote unquote goodchoices, that that doesn't
guarantee the same payoff forthe choices that they make.
And so I think that kind ofrhetoric, that kind of

(10:16):
choice-based, individualisticrhetoric, is deeply damaging, in
part because it discourages usfrom pursuing the kinds of
universal social policies thatare necessary for all of us to
live with dignity that oursocial safety net is.
We do have one, but it's tinyand meager and means-tested in
ways that stigmatize and lead tohigh levels of surveillance of

(10:40):
people who are in highlyimpoverished situations or
struggling to get by.
And the alternative model, whichI'll talk about in a minute, is
a model that is built on anunderstanding that all people
are deserving of life withdignity.
And that is what the myth ofmeritocracy chips away at.
It treats some people asinherently more deserving than
others and in the process itcreates this perception that you

(11:04):
know it's sort of good thingsfor me but not for thee.
You know it's like if I'veworked hard, then I maybe
deserve this extra level ofsupport, but if you are
struggling, then clearly you didsomething wrong and you don't
deserve that support unlessmaybe you jump through all these
hoops to prove it.
And that kind of universaldignity model it shows up in
policies and there's, you know,lots of ways to cut the
specifics, but especially ifwe're looking at our kind of

(11:27):
high income country counterparts.
Places like Sweden, for example,have invested in policies that
allow all people to live withdignity, that allow people to
access economic opportunitiesand that also create the
conditions for people to sharemore equitably and sustainably
in a shared project of care, andthat looks like things like
universal, affordable healthcare.

(11:47):
In Sweden, for example, themaximum out-of-pocket cost that
any person pays is about $200per person per year $200, you
know US dollars, the equivalent,you know.
Compare that to the levels ofmedical debt that we have in the
US.
They also have tuition-freecollege and graduate degrees,
which means no student loan debt.
They also have tuition-freecollege and graduate degrees,
which means no student loan debt.

(12:07):
They also have up to 18 monthsof paid family leave for each
child, with kind ofencouragements built in for men
to take that leave as much aswomen.
They also have very low-costchild care a maximum of about
$135 a month for child care,which is pennies compared to
what we're paying here.
For all kids ages one to five,they also have guaranteed paid
sick leave, including extraleave for parents that they can

(12:28):
use when their kids get sick.
They have monthly childallowances to help families
weather all the costs that comewith raising children, and they
even have things like a men forgender equality program that
aims to encourage men to getmore involved in caregiving
through school based programs,through social clubs, to get
more involved in caregivingthrough school-based programs,
through social clubs.
And these are efforts that helpto lay the groundwork for all
people to have that opportunityto have the time, and there's

(12:51):
even things like moves towardfour-day work weeks or 35-hour
work weeks that can help to freeup some time.
Those kinds of protections.
It's one thing to give peoplethe support that they need to
engage in the paid workforce,but something that often gets
left out of the equation islimits on paid work hours,
because if we allow our paidwork to take over too much of
our lives, then we have noincentive to care for ourselves

(13:14):
or care for others and no timeto do it, even if we want to.
And that's a place wherethinking about it as a balance
not just how do we incentivizepeople to engage in paid work,
but how do we make sure thatthey're protected from paid work
taking over too much of theirtime and energies and selves is
another key part of the equationtoo, and these kinds of
policies they pay off.
I mean, compared to the US, forexample, sweden has higher

(13:37):
rates of maternal employment.
They have smaller gender wagegaps and motherhood penalties,
even things like lower rates ofpostpartum depression and
maternal mortality, lower ratesof maternal and child poverty.
I mean this translates intohigher levels of stability and
security across the board andalso reduces gender inequality
in ways that allow men and womenand people of all genders to be

(13:58):
able to participate moreequitably and sustainably in
this kind of project of care.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
What about the effects of the situation, kind
of turning the lens back to herein the United States, or
actually, if the research tellsyou something you know from
Sweden, for example, about theeffects on the children, like,
what do we know about theeffects on kids when their
caregivers, whether that's themom or the dad or some other

(14:24):
caregiver, when that caregiveris particularly stressed because
they lack support, what doesthat mean for the kids?
And then, kind of conversely,what do we know about outcomes
when caregivers do have a goodsource of support, whether
that's, at the very least, childcare or perhaps child care plus
other of those types ofpolicies that you talked about?

(14:45):
So what do we know abouteffects on kids?

Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah.
So unfortunately, what we knowis that our DIY society, you
know, isn't just terrible forwomen.
It's really bad for all of us,including for kids, and that's
in part because when parents arestressed, kids suffer.
Parents' stress increases therisk of physical violence for
kids.
It also takes a toll onchildren developmentally and
academically and behaviorally,and even in terms of things like

(15:09):
their physical health and theirmental health, in terms of
their ability to weather crises,the sort of lasting traumas
that can come out of that andthe smaller day-to-day struggles
as well.
And at the same time, we knowthat a lack of support,
especially with caregiving, isone of the key sources of stress
for parents and for familieswith children.
Research shows and kind ofironically on that front, the

(15:30):
research actually shows that onaverage, stay-at-home moms are
actually more stressed thanemployed moms, often because
they have even lower levels ofsupport.
And this actually has to dowith the fact that, despite
oftentimes the stereotypesaround stay-at-home moms, most
of the women who are in thatsituation have been pushed out
of the paid workforce because ofthe high cost of childcare.
Roughly 75% of stay-at-homemoms in the US have household

(15:53):
incomes of under $50,000 a year,but they typically have
partners who make just a littlebit too much to qualify for any
sort of subsidized childcare,and so this puts them in a
situation where oftentimes theironly option is to stay home,
and so many of the moms that Italked to who were in this
situation talked about thewanting to go back to work.
You know that the loss ofidentity, the isolation, and yet

(16:13):
feeling like they ran thenumbers over and over again and
couldn't figure out a way tomake it work, and so I think
it's you know.
It pushes back against some ofthe stereotypes.
But at the same time, it'simportant to acknowledge too,
that even for mothers who areemployed full time or part time,
that their stress increasessubstantially when they're not
able to access affordable andreliable child care.

(16:34):
And that's you know.
I think certainly some of themost stressed moms I've ever
talked to are moms who had towork a split shift with their
partners that couldn't affordchild care but also needed two
incomes just to be able to keepa roof over their heads, and so
they would end up doing thingslike staying home all day with
the kids and then working anight shift because they
couldn't afford child care.
That's actually what my own momdid with me when I was first

(16:57):
born.
My parents couldn't affordchild care and my mom had me
when she was in college, and soshe dropped out and was working,
caring for me full time andthen working a night shift job,
and once they finally had alittle bit of money, she put it
into starting her own home childcare business, because that was
the best way to make ends meetfinancially and also, you know,

(17:18):
be home with my siblings and me,and so I think it's you know
the kinds of impossible calculusthat so many families have to
navigate in the absence of childcare, and certainly we saw
echoes of that, too in thecontext of the COVID-19 pandemic
, where families experienceddisruptions to child care,
disruptions to schooling, andsaw a rapid increase in the

(17:38):
levels of stress that they werefacing and the consequences that
we've seen in terms of lastingeffects on kids' mental health
and kids academically.
Back in December of 2020, andat kind of the height of the
COVID pandemic, I conducted asurvey with more than 2,000
parents from across the US, andwhat I found was that the
majority of parents who wereworking remotely while also

(17:59):
caring for their kids at homethey reported that they were
yelling at their kids more oftenthan they were before COVID,
before schools and childcarecenters shut down, and
ironically those patterns wereactually most pronounced among
dads.
Of the dads who were doing atleast some of their work
remotely during that kind ofearly stage of the pandemic,
nearly half said that they wereyelling at their kids at least

(18:20):
once a day.
And the interviews that I did atthe time were telling a very
similar story.
And I actually talked to anumber of moms who, despite
their own paid work obligationsand the lack of childcare,
actually told their husbands ortheir partners to go back to the
office because having theirhusbands at home they were so
angry all the time that it justwasn't worth having them at home
that they were making thingskind of more tense and worse.

(18:41):
I talked to this one mom Icalled Janet.
She was working full-time as afinancial administrator when
COVID hit and she was able totransition to working full-time
remotely and her husband wasable to work from home a couple
of days a week and they hadthree kids, three young kids, at
home and you know, at firstJanet like wanted her husband to
be more involved and to kind ofbe active with the kids.
But she talked about the daysthat he was home as just chaos,

(19:03):
that he was just constantlyyelling at the kids and
frustrated that they weren'tjust doing their schoolwork or
weren't just listening when heasked them to do things and she
ultimately told him she's likelook, it's just, you know, go
back to the office.
It's not worth having you here,it's not worth you know.
And at the same time this tooka huge toll on her, in the sense
she talked about how she wasstruggling with deep depression
during this time, how she hadstarted drinking more heavily,

(19:25):
how she gained 30 pounds or 40pounds in three months, that
this was just a kind of deeplystressful time for her and that
she could see the toll that thiswas taking on her kids in the
moment too, which, you know, Ithink, gets us back to this sort
of superwoman or supermom myththat we talked about before and
how, you know, it often doesfall to women to make these

(19:45):
kinds of choices and, to, youknow, take on more of that
stress for themselves, in somecases even to protect their
children from other parents whomight not be in a position
emotionally to handle that kindof stress in the moment because
of the lack of experience thatthey often have, and juggling
both things at the same time.

Speaker 3 (20:03):
You know it's interesting, as you were talking
about the pernicious effects ofstress on children, I started
thinking about the adversechildhood experiences, work, and
I was thinking well, you know,not having child care, like
that's not really one of the 10aces.
You know those factors thatcontribute.
And for those not familiar withACEs, work, it's this there are

(20:28):
these 10 sort of high riskfactors that when children
experience multiple ones, itreally increases their chances
of poor health outcomes asadults.
So it's this really longlasting thing.
But as you were explainingabout this one case and again
you know it's one case but I'msure there's many more cases
like it Like what did COVIDreally do in terms of that type

(20:54):
of different stress excuse me,of both parents being at home?
And again, even if there was agreat child care system in the
community, right, like differentcommunities made different
decisions.
But this whole sort of notionof how does our safety net bend
and flex, as you know, holy, asit is not H-O-L-Y but full of

(21:17):
holes, you know, duringsomething like COVID and is that
a natural experiment that youknow, someone with your research
eye is sort of learning aboutwhat those impacts had on
families from all differentkinds of angles.
I mean it's super fascinating.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, I mean, I think certainly this is, you know,
something we're still trying tounpack is what are the long-term
consequences of COVID, and Ithink it's particularly when it
comes to kids.
It's been talked about a lot interms of learning loss, but I
think what we've seen is thatreopening schools didn't solve
things the ways that peopleexpected them to, that we're
still seeing kids strugglingacademically and behaviorally

(21:55):
and socially and certainlymental health-wise, in ways that
suggest that there's somethingmuch deeper going on here.
And I think that points to theidea that these, you know, these
disruptions were not justchallenging in the sense that
kids were getting, you know, theacademic support that they
needed.
It was much more about thekinds of stress, the kinds of
trauma, the kinds of loss thatkids were suffering in the

(22:16):
context of COVID and that theirfamilies were suffering around
them, and the kinds of rippleeffects of those broader traumas
.
I think it's hard to teaseapart the mechanisms, but I
think there's certainly goodreason to suspect that our sort
of especially our lack of ourwillingness to address this as a
crisis moment and to just sortof push everyone back to normal

(22:38):
as quickly as possible, but Ithink that may have,
unfortunately, done more harmthan good in terms of helping to
address some of these deeptraumas that we've suffered in
the process.

Speaker 3 (22:49):
So, coming back to your sort of concept of our DIY
system, assuming that we somekind of we would want to fix
that, what is the role ofgovernment and private and
philanthropic sectors in tryingto move us off that path and
correct and basically fix thisissue?

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Yeah, I mean I would argue that government has a
particularly important role toplay here, and that's in part
because I'm happy to get moreinto the specifics with this,
with the Q&A.
But it's basically impossibleto make care work both
profitable and sustainable, andthat's a big piece of it and
that's a place where governmentalmost has to step in.
That's the role that governmentplays.

(23:32):
But there's another piece ofthis which comes from the fact
that our kind of emphasis onprivate solutions is part of
what got us into this sort ofDIY mess in the first place.
And you know, in the book Itraced this back to the 1930s
and in the wake of the GreatDepression.
Essentially at the time therewere sort of, you know, big
business manufacturers, kind ofthe wealthiest of the wealthy

(23:53):
they weren't really billionairesat the time, but the equivalent
of today's billionaires werenot particularly happy about
having to pay the higher taxesthat were needed to fund
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
And so those sort of wealthyelites that the National
Association of Manufacturers andfolks affiliated with that
group set out to find a way topersuade Americans that we
didn't really need this kind ofsocial safety net that the New

(24:15):
Deal would provide, and whatthey found in the process was a
group of Austrian economists whowere developing essentially
neoliberal theory, which is theidea that societies are better
off without social safety netsbecause, at least according to
the theory, the less protectionthat people have from risk, the
more likely they'll be to makegood choices and keep themselves

(24:37):
safe instead and in subsequentgenerations.
This idea has been thoroughlydebunked with data Like this is
not how people respond to risk.
More people, more risk does notmake people make better choices
and, if anything, it cansometimes lead to worse choices.
But at the same time, manyAmericans were persuaded to
believe this idea anyway, inpart because the engineers and
the profiteers of this DIY modelfunded massive, decades long

(25:01):
propaganda campaigns, thingslike General Electric Theater,
which was kind of funded bythese same groups and went on to
launch Ronald Reagan's career.
He was the host of this program.
That really became what led toAmericans voting him into office
, and to that end, I mean.
These campaigns were aimed atpersuading Americans that we
don't need taxes, especially onbillionaires and big

(25:23):
corporations, because people cantake care of themselves and
pull themselves up by their ownbootstraps, and in part because
the wealth generated bybillionaires and big
corporations will eventuallytrickle down and help everyone
else, and that trickle downmodel clearly hasn't paid off
and, if anything, that thepropaganda campaigns that
existed for decades helped toelect politicians like Reagan,

(25:43):
whose policies things likepropaganda campaigns that
existed for decades helped toelect politicians like Reagan.
You know whose policies thingslike tax cuts, things like the
elimination of restrictions oncampaign spending ultimately
gave you know these sort ofthese bigwigs and their cronies.
You know even more power.
You know power that we seeplaying out in potentially
disastrous ways right now in thecontext of our government.
And you know, even before wegot to this moment, this power

(26:03):
was being used to slash holes inthe social safety net that we
did have at the time and reallyhelped to lay the groundwork for
the kind of precarity that somany of us are feeling.
You know the sense that we'reall kind of sicker, sadder and
more stressed than we could be,and certainly more so than
previous generations.
And to that end, I mean I arguein the book that really, if we

(26:25):
want to fix this, the best kindof most straightforward solution
is to increase taxes on thosebillionaires and big
corporations and use that moneyto fund a decent social safety
net, the kind that we talkedabout before, that lets people
live with dignity and accesseconomic opportunities and
contribute equitably andsustainably to this project of
care.
At the same time, I do stillthink there's a role for the

(26:46):
private and philanthropicsectors to play, particularly in
lobbying for these kinds ofchanges and standing up for this
kind of shift in our thinkingabout where responsibility for
risk belongs in our society, andcertainly also for standing up
against the kinds of tendenciestoward autocracy that can come

(27:07):
with this sort of extremeconcentration of wealth and
power.
And at the same time, Isometimes get pushback like well
, you know, won't raising taxesbe bad for small businesses?
But I would argue that it'sactually the other way around.
You know, in the US, 99.9% ofall businesses are small
businesses, and those businesses, like most of us, are
struggling under the pressuresof this kind of DIY society, in

(27:30):
part because of how they've beenforced to figure out things
like healthcare and childcareand retirement packages for
their employees.
And many of these smallbusinesses can't afford to make
ends meet while also payingdecent wages and offering decent
benefits to their employees.
And many of these smallbusinesses can't afford to make
ends meet while also payingdecent wages and offering decent
benefits to their employees,and this creates challenges in
terms of recruiting good talentand getting the work done and

(27:52):
making sure that the focus is onwhat you're supposed to be
doing day to day.
And I would argue that, if wethink about focusing on where do
we strategically raise taxesand how do we focus that?
On those who are mostpositioned to do more and who,
if anything, have been doing farless than their fair share for
far too many generations that wecan use that money to fund
systems like universal healthcare and universal child care.

(28:15):
That would take the pressureoff of small business owners and
solve some of their biggestday-to-day challenges and let
them focus on the kind ofinnovation that they do best.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Yeah, really, really, really important and major
thoughts there.
I have two more questions, butwhat I'd like to do is pose the
next one and then move toaudience questions.
So I know Gabby has said in thechat, if you have any questions
, to please go ahead, put thosein.
So, as you shared this research, how have folks been responding

(28:49):
?
Like do they find comfort inyour findings?
Are they outraged?
Like have you learned if yourwork has been able to inspire
anyone to try to press forchange?
Like what's the reaction?

Speaker 2 (29:00):
you're kind of seeing .
Yeah, I mean certainly.
I think one of my favoritethings as an author is getting
notes from readers who tell methat this book, you know, left
them feeling not only seen inthe kinds of struggles that
they're up against, but alsoempowered to try to work for
change.
I talked to one mom, forexample.
She's a stay at home mom inVirginia.
She has four young kids.
She used to be a teacher butshe dropped out of the workforce

(29:23):
when her oldest was bornbecause the only child care
options she could find in the DCarea cost more than what she
was making every month.
And she told me she listened tothe audio book because that's
all she could manage as a mom.
She's doing laundry and runningerrands and doing dishes.
And she told me that the book,you know, did leave her angry,
but at the same time, she talkedabout it as not in a self-pity

(29:44):
kind of way.
Instead, she said it's the kindof anger that makes you want to
do something about it.
And you know and I think thatyou know, even though she told
me that, even though she'ssomeone who struggles with
social anxiety that she startedcalling congressional
representatives.
She started organizing withother local parents, in part
around the election this pastNovember, trying to work on get
out the vote campaigns and, morerecently, working to push local

(30:06):
schools and community leadersto take steps to protect kids
and families from the kinds ofpolitical attacks that have been
happening in communities aroundthe US in the last couple of
weeks.
And you know, I talked to herabout this and I think I may
have even convinced her to runfor office herself someday, and
so I think that you know she'sthe kind of person that I think

(30:27):
would be, and there's terrificorganizations like Vote Mama
that I've tried to put her intouch with, either for herself
or possibly for some of theother women that she's been
working with.
And I think these kinds ofstories, you know, they give me
hope that people who often feelthe most kind of checked out of
politics or the most checked outof news those who aren't kind
of feel like I don't have thetime day to day to do this that
we can.
That is a place where we canthink about.

(30:47):
You know, what are the smalltweaks that I can make to where
I'm spending my time and myenergy and how can I use it to
think about being part ofcommunity and think about you
know, using the energy and thetime that I have as
strategically as possible towork collectively to push for
this kind of change.

Speaker 3 (31:05):
Yeah, that's it's.
That'd be so gratifying, youknow, to hear that and just
collect those differentexperiences and responses,
because I'm sure again, becauseyou're proposing such big policy
, you know fixes, for example,that there's so much, probably,
skepticism and negativism aroundthat, like we haven't done it

(31:26):
in decades.
We know what we could do, wejust don't do it.
And so then to hear you know,on the more grassroots level,
when people really hear whatyou're saying and respond in a
way that says, you know, I cantake some autonomy to do
something about this too, that'sgot to be so cool.
Okay, so I haven't been payingreally hardly any attention to
the chat.

(31:46):
So, gabby or Jay, do we haveany questions that have popped
up or anyone want to raise theirhand and come off mute and ask
a question for Jessica?

Speaker 4 (31:57):
Yeah, we did have a couple members and if you feel
like if this was your question,feel free to unmute yourself as
well.
We can spotlight you.
They asked about what thecurrent anti-DEI rhetoric, what
the current, you know, project2025 agenda is going to do in
order to set up the future ofwomen in the US.

(32:19):
So not sure if anyone wants tojump off mute.
That was.
I asked that correctly, butthat was definitely a major
question in the chat.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
Yeah, I mean certainly, I think this is a
really important question to beasking right now, in the sense
that I think we have I talk inthe book about how we have long
been in a situation wheretrapping women in precarity has
been a mechanism to push theminto situations where they often

(32:52):
have no choice but to settlefor less than ideal partners and
less than ideal jobs and, youknow, to do this work of the
social safety net because thereare no better options on the
table.
And that, really, that to theextent that we can dehumanize
and desensitize people toviolence and hatred and
mistreatment of others, thatthat facilitates that kind of

(33:15):
exploitation, you know certainly, certainly of women but of many
others who are in precariouspositions in this moment as well
.
And I mean that's a huge worryfor me in the sense that this
kind of rhetoric, even if itdoesn't actually change policy,
that it has the potential toerode the empathy that we feel
toward others and erode the kindof solidarity that has the

(33:37):
potential to help us work forchange.
I mean, I talk in the bookabout how these myths that you
know, things like the myth ofmeritocracy, things like the
myth of the superwoman and thesupermom.
These are designed to not onlydilute us into thinking that we
don't need a social safety netbecause, you know, everybody
should just be able to work hardand get ahead, but also to

(34:01):
divide us.
To divide us by gender and raceand class and religion and
politics in ways that keep usfrom coming together to
challenge the power of those whoare essentially kleptocrats,
you know, who are trying to takeas much for themselves as
possible and leave the rest ofus scrabbling in precarity.
Instead and I think that's a bigplace where these anti-DEI
efforts can operate both, Ithink, maybe most dangerously

(34:22):
with changes in policy, we'reseeing essentially a kind of
digital re-envisioning of theMcCarthy era, where you can not
just rely on reports of who isengaged in behavior, but search
through them and use AI to helpyou search through, you know,
reports and data to find thosewho are subject to attacks.

(34:43):
But also the kinds of rhetoricthat these policies are wrapped
in is incredibly dangerous andhas the potential to.
You know, there's a lot ofdebates among academics
sometimes around, like has thegender revolution, you know?
Has it just stalled?
And I would argue that, ifanything, what we're seeing
right now is a gendercounter-revolution, that we're
seeing a sort of movement in theopposite direction, where

(35:05):
things have the potential to getmuch, much worse before they
get better.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
Um, thank you for that insight.
The ground is just continuallyshifting, sort of day by day,
and it's's it does feel hard tothink that it's like overall
going nowhere, but but inreverse.
Any other questions, gabby?

Speaker 5 (35:38):
if you have, if you want to, you know, carry on with
this question, but is theanswer?
Government provided support,slash services or funds that
families slash individuals canuse.
So do they provide any of those?

Speaker 2 (35:47):
things.
I mean, I think it's certainly Ithink, in an ideal, oftentimes
government, when it comes tothings like care-based services,
is in the best position to dothat work efficiently and
effectively, but only if it'swell-funded.
And so I think there's somecaveats when it comes to things
like care-based services, is inthe best position to do that
work efficiently and effectively, but only if it's well-funded.
And so I think there's somecaveats in terms of, you know,
at the same time thinking aboutthe role.
So, essentially, if we'rethinking about childcare, for

(36:08):
example, we want childcare to behigh quality.
We don't want to sacrifice thekinds of standards you know many
one of the reasons thatchildcare is so expensive is
that, you know, for infant care,for example, most states
require a ratio of one adult forevery four kids, and so that's
an incredibly large amount oflabor and that's expensive to
provide.
But it also means that you haveand it's spread over a very

(36:31):
small number of families, and soeither, you know, if you, if
you're trying to make a profitoff of childcare, you either
have to deeply underpay workersor deeply overcharge families,
or both, and that just createsthe sort of unsustainable system
that we're stuck in now, wherewe see incredibly high rates of
turnover, where we've seenworkers kind of leaving
childcare employment in droves,where we see childcare centers

(36:52):
having to close because theycan't find enough staff, and
where we see families strugglingto be able to afford the basic
care that they need to keeptheir jobs and keep a roof over
their heads.
And so I think you know theseare the kinds of places where
government provided services.
This is typically how they'rerun in other countries.
You know the way that we runpublic schools.
You know in the sense that wehave a little bit more local
control here than many otherplaces around the world do, and

(37:14):
there's debates that we couldhave about the level of local
control that is good andnecessary for these kinds of
services.
But certainly I thinkgovernment provided systems when
it comes to things likehealthcare, when it comes to
things like childcare, when itcomes to things like elder care,
that these can be systems thatoperate best when you can have
strong regulations for qualityin place, when you can have

(37:35):
systematic funding and when youcan actually get efficiency and
quality by investing in goodsystems that work well and that
can be implemented strategicallyand systematically across the
board.
At the same time, I thinkthere's still a place for
flexibility.
We are a very large country withlots of different communities
and lots of different peoplewith lots of different kinds of

(37:55):
needs, and so I think havingsome built-in flexibility with
the system can also be helpfultoo when it comes to supporting
families who may need somethingslightly different for the kinds
of individual needs that theirkids have or that their aging
parents have, and so havingother opportunities maybe it's,
you know, family stipends thatyou can use to.
If grandma really wants to beyour childcare provider, what

(38:15):
can we do to make thatsustainable and possible in ways
that don't affect her abilityto have a secure retirement, for
example, or that don't rely onher to drive, you know, six
hours a week to be able to makeit to your house without any
sort of compensation for mileage?
I think there's ways that wecan think about how to make the
system kind of have a baselinesystem that doesn't depend on

(38:35):
people being in networks thatthey can rely on for care or
having the availability of localprivate providers, while also
building in some flexibility tomeet more individual needs.

Speaker 3 (38:46):
Yeah, if I could just add sort of one thing to that.
I mean, one of the things Ithink that makes thinking about
government programs sochallenging is we've just set up
so many complex rules foreligibility, and so to just to
think about more of that, youknow, can be maybe not the best

(39:09):
path.
So you know if you could do itin ways other countries do it
where it's either.
Perhaps, you know, I don't knowif more universal is the answer
.
Sometimes people say having auniversal benefit can make it
simpler, but we've set up somany crazy barriers and
bureaucracies and red tape forpeople to get assistance that
sometimes you think we don'treally even want to help people.

(39:31):
And there are plenty ofexperiments around the country
with what's sometimes calleddirect cash assistance or
unconditional cash or somethinglike that, which is, I think,
part of maybe what Sue's askingabout that families know where
they need the support and sogiving them the resources to be
able to purchase what it is thatthey need.
But again, you still might begoing out into a market where

(39:53):
there is no second shift childcare, and so, whether you have
resources or not, the secondshift child care isn't there.
The Saturday child care isn'tthere, what have you?
So there's definitely, I think,a lot of nuances under that,
and you know our country hassort of landed in this spot.
That makes it hard to thinkabout how we get out of that
thicket A little editorializingthere.

Speaker 2 (40:13):
No, that's perfect.
Yeah, no, that's a greataddition.
I think you're absolutely rightthat both and the lack of
universal programs, the barriersthat we set up in this country,
not only make it costlier andso much more complicated, but it
also adds stigma in ways thatactually some of the mothers
that I talked to were eligiblefor things like WIC, were
eligible for things like foodstamps, were eligible for things

(40:34):
like Medicaid and didn't wantto sign up because they didn't
want the stigma that came withit, or because they had heard
from friends that these programsmake you jump through so many
hoops that it's just not worthit.
And so I mean, I think, thinkingabout how a move to a more
universal kind of a model orpotentially a cash-based model,
especially for some types ofassistance, you know, especially
if we can strip away, you know,checks, things like a universal

(40:55):
child tax credit, is a greatmodel that can put money into
families' hands without the needfor a lot of overhead, without
the need for any sort of checksand balances or checks in terms
of eligibility that can slowthings down.
So I think there are ways toget creative with this, but
certainly the models that wehave elsewhere are a good place
to start.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
Jessica actually has a whole chapter on this, talking
about the stigma that oftencomes along with
government-funded programs and,again, the societal norms and
beliefs that we've adapted thathave kept so many women and
working families from actuallyaccessing the support they need.

(41:38):
So I think it's just behavioralchange that needs to happen.
I think it's as a society weneed to rethink and deconstruct
a lot of what we've learned, tokind of relearn new things.
So I just want to say thatthere is a very important
question that I think deservestime here, and it was Strigita.

(42:00):
I don't know if you want tounmute yourself and ask it, but
I think it's so important,especially because if we look at
what happened last year withthe election and what's
happening now, I feel likeloneliness is striking young men
particularly very heavily, andI think it's this couple with
social media and maybe toxicmasculinity.
Bro culture is also influencinga lot of their behavior and

(42:27):
voting patterns, et cetera.
So she asked how can we bettereducate and embrace younger men
to embrace healthier perceptionsaround gender roles?

Speaker 2 (42:39):
Yeah, this is a great question.
Actually, some of theinteresting new reporting has
come out that the gap inloneliness is actually not as
big.
It's only about a 1% gender gapbetween men and women.
It's been sort of overblown bythe media to some extent that
there is certainly evidence of amental health crisis across the
board and it is affecting menin some ways differently than

(42:59):
women, but the loneliness pieceof it, you know, has been sort
of overblown in certain waysmedia-wise.
At the same time, I do thinkthere is a lot of reason to be
worried about what's going onwith young men these days.
I cite in the book, andcertainly things have even
actually gotten worse than thestatistics that I have in the
book.
Ipsos runs this InternationalWomen's Day poll every year and

(43:21):
what they've found in recentyears is that growing
percentages of men, particularlyyoung men, are saying that
we've gone too far toward genderequality, that we're getting to
the point where this is hurtingmen as opposed to empowering
women, that we should kind ofseeing feminism as a threat
instead of as a sort ofuniversal project, blaming women

(43:42):
for the kind of the plight ofmen, and that these numbers are
troubling.
It's almost half, it's about 47percent of men in the US buy
into some of these ideas, andit's actually disproportionately
common among younger men, amongsort of 18 to 30 year olds that
are in our society today andsome of the next generation
above them as well, and I thinkthis is a place where both in

(44:03):
terms of the sort of mentalhealth crisis among men and some
of this sort of kind ofanti-feminist backlash, I would
argue that a lot of this stemsfrom the fact that we you know,
we socialize women forcaregiving roles from the time
that they're old enough to holda baby doll.
You know we socialize women forcaregiving roles from the time
that they're old enough to holda baby doll.
You know we train young girls.
I was just talking to mydaughter yesterday.
She's in fifth grade and herschool they assign kids like

(44:26):
helper roles when they're infifth grade and all of the
lunchtime, or all of thelunchtime and recess,
kindergarten helpers are girlsand they have to.
You know, help all thekindergartners get their lunches
, get their coats on, get themoutside, play with them, help
them navigate the lunch.
You know the recess fights andshe's like kids are quitting
because it's so hard and that'smore work on those of us who are
left and I'm like, yeah, I getit.

(44:48):
It's this kind of deeplygendered labor that we start on
girls from a very young age butwe don't train or socialize boys
for those kinds of caregivingobligations.
And I would argue that that, youknow, does a disservice, not
only in terms of leaving them,you know, underprepared for when
they are in caregiving roleswhich most of them will be at
some point, you know, leavingthem in positions where they do

(45:08):
get more angry, where they doget more stressed because they
don't have the level ofpreparation, but I would argue
that it also contributes to thiskind of loneliness and mental
health crisis, because what itmeans is that the only source of
identity that men have in oursociety is their paid work.
You know they can't find solaceand joy and identity and value
in their lives through therelationships that they have

(45:29):
with others, or at least wedon't create.
We don't help them lay thegroundwork for that in ways that
we do for girls.
We don't help them see thevalue in friendship, the value
in caring for others, the valuein being in community with other
people or taking care of yourcommunity or taking care of your
home.
There's joy in that, and Ithink we deny boys that
opportunity to find joy inanything but making money and

(45:52):
engaging in paid work andgetting ahead status-wise, and I
think that's a really dangeroussituation to be in,
particularly in a moment whereopportunities to get ahead
economically are becoming moreprecarious and more complicated
and can lead to some of thekinds of sexist backlash and
racist backlash that we've seenin our society, in terms of men
feeling like they're underthreat as opposed to seeing or

(46:15):
kind of misplacing where thethreat is coming from, as
opposed to seeing the largermachinations at play.

Speaker 1 (46:21):
What are some key takeaways that or action items
that you would want?
Not just the VEST members thatare here with us today, but also
those women and people who wantto support that are listening
to our podcast.
What are some takeaways andaction items you want us to
leave listening to our podcast?
What are some takeaways andaction items you want us to?

Speaker 2 (46:39):
leave with.
I mean, I think one of thesmall things that we all can do
day to day is catch ourselveswhen we follow it, when we find
ourselves falling into mythicalthinking, when we think of
ourselves as those super womenthat are expected to do
everything, or when we catchourselves engaging in that kind
of meritocratic thinking, youknow, ignoring the systemic
barriers that exist in oursociety and and feeling like, oh
well, why don't they just workharder, you know, why don't they

(47:04):
just, you know, make the betterchoices?
And when we find ourselvesblaming others for the kinds of
choices that they make, insteadof seeing those bigger
structures.
And, you know, the next step isto call that out on others.
You know, notice it when thepeople around you, when your
friends, your loved ones, yourcolleagues, are thinking in
those kinds of ways and saying,hey, let's rethink this, let's
think about why this might notbe, you know, the most
productive way of thinking aboutthis situation.
Or might there be other thingsat play here that we can push

(47:25):
back against?
And I think that kind of pushingback against the myths is part
of how we lay the groundwork forsolidarity, because that's, you
know, as we've talked abouttoday, what we really need in
this moment is for all of us tocome together, across our
differences, you know, to rejectthese kinds of artificial
divisions that these you know,the engineers and profiteers of
this DIY model have tried to.

(47:45):
You know these bridges or thesewalls that they've tried to
erect between us around thingslike care, or around shared
identities, or around sharedstruggles, and say how do we
come together, how do we form,for example, mutual aid groups
or how do we get involved withexisting organizations that are
doing this work on the groundand finding ways to be in

(48:05):
community with others, tosupport each other and to have
spaces where we can hear eachother and be vulnerable with
each other and then think about,you know, from that place of
trust, how do we work togetherto push for this larger change.
So I mean, I'm hopeful thatthis moment that we're in, as
hard as it is, that I am seeingsmall bits of change, that I am

(48:26):
seeing people who aren'ttypically engaged politically or
who aren't typically engagedwith media paying attention and
stepping up and making changesin their lives, and so I think
this is, you know, both a veryhard moment for many people, but
also, potentially, one thatcould lead us to something
better long term.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
I 100% agree.
I often tell people everythingis political, as we're seeing
now.
Jobs are political, safety netsare political, our ability to
provide for our family ispolitical.
So the sense that we shouldn'tengage in politics or political
conversations.
I think it's like saying, oh,we don't care about schools or

(49:04):
we don't care about, you know,being able to provide for our
families.
So thank you for that.
How can members or thosesubscribers that are listening
to this episode find you andconnect with you?

Speaker 2 (49:15):
Sure, so I'm on.
My website is JessicaCalarcocom, which has links to all my
socials.
I'm mostly these days on onblue sky and LinkedIn, less so
on some of the other platforms,but I'm there too.
It's mostly just at JessicaCalarco is my pretty standard,
standard name, but I reallyappreciate all of you being here
and I'll look forward tohopefully being in touch and
staying in community.

Speaker 1 (49:36):
If you enjoyed this episode, share with a friend and
don't forget to leave us areview.
And if you're ready to takeyour career to the next level,
apply to join our community ofprofessional women all eager to
help you get there and staythere.
Go to wwwvestherco and applytoday.