“(Dianne reckons Beverly’s dreaming if she thinks she can work full time 6 weeks after the birth of her baby however likely she may have arrangements in place that Dianne is unaware of!) Permanent nanny from day 1 but she’s still dreaming …”
This is just one snippet of a thread of emails that were published in The Australian today.
It was sent by television executive and programmer John Stephens to executives at Channel Ten. The Australian reports that at the time, Stephens was about to leave Channel 7 for a position at Ten and the Beverley to whom he refers is Ten’s chief programming officer Beverley McGarvey, who was on maternity leave with her first child. (The emails came to light because Stephens decided to stay at Channel 7 which prompted Ten to commence legal action against him).
Other lines include: “You mentioned Beverly (sic) would most likely stay-on in possibly a less responsible role! This is fine by me but must be under the proviso she remains a team player and can perhaps learn more & even take the next step in her Programming career?” and;
“Also re Beverly. As discussed we need to convince her any new arrangement would need to be nothing short a total team effort! For this to succeed I will need to have the final call on all things programming and acquisitions wise for all three channels.”
On the one hand his emails makes for disheartening reading. But on the other hand, they’re actually quite refreshing. Rather than having to navigate the various excuses offered up for why mothers and workplace success still aren’t a natural mix, it’s clear as day.
There is no denying the sentiment in Stephens’ words is that McGarvey’s commitment and ability will be compromised because of her new baby. Never mind that Stephens had never worked with her or that McGarvey has spent 20 years successfully working her way up in television. Never mind that McGarvey is the executive familiar with the team and operations that he’d be new to. Never mind that she’d “said” she’d be back in her role six weeks after giving birth.
Nope, before McGarvey even had a chance to step back into the office and prove she’s the same person she was six weeks’ earlier, her motives and ability were being questioned. Television networks are hardly renowned for being enlightened employers of women but, even still, this is dispiriting.
From Stephens’ emails his expectations of Beverley are very clear. She’d need to accommodate his seniority (whilst also being abreast of everything so that when he required it she could cover his role). She’d need to remain a “team player”.
What about what’s expected of him?
He offered to placate her doubts (though his emails make it quite clear that any doubts she might have had were well-founded). There was no mention of his team “spirit” or his leadership. No mention of his willingness (let alone responsibility) to support and harness Beverley, a valuable team member, in her return to work.
Obviously I can’t say with absolute certainty but I will hazard a guess that Stephens wouldn’t have posed the same concerns about Beverley if she was a man who had just become a father for the first time. Had Stephens considered that, regardless of hiring a nanny or not, perhaps McGarvey’s partner might be staying at home for the first chunk of their child’s life? I am not familiar with McGarvey’s family arrangements but I am familiar with the fact that many households have women as the main breadwinners. In that instance it is common for those women to return to work quickly.
Those women should, at the very least, be treated the same way as fathers who take two weeks’ paternity leave before returning to work. But that doesn’t seem to have crossed Stephens’ mind. The only thing that appears to have crossed his mind is that Beverley’s had a baby which might make her less suitable for the job than she was.
Which is telling. And, ironically, it’s the reason lots of mothers discover they were “dreaming” when they thought they could combine work and family. Because there are people who make it so.