A certain elite university boasts (literally) an endowment of $5.7 billion (yes, billion with a B)--or did as of Tuesday, 16 September; you should add a million or two per day to get the approximate sum on the day you read this. On that same date the university announced that it will embark on a $1 billion (with a B) program to renovate the buildings on its campus. Yet just eighteen months ago, this same anonymous university--by far the biggest employer in one of the most economically depressed cities in the nation--engaged in a no-holds-barred campaign to break the two unions that represent its nonacademic labor force. And just before that, the university crushed the latest effort by the graduate students' union, which was seeking, before anything else, simply to get the university to admit the self-evident truth that teaching assistants are employees and that, as such, they have the right to bargain collectively.

This institution fosters an extreme but not atypical example of the condition described in this book's subtitle. The academic labor force in the United States, from the celebrated professor to the undervalued custodian, faces an unprecedented crisis, a crisis deftly delineated in the seventeen essays of this book, roughly half of which focus on the labor struggles at the above-unnamed (but named in the book) elite university. That struggle brought support from labor's allies nationwide, but in the end it did little to change the workers' status from what frighteningly parallels--as Stephen Watt puts it in the book's most poignant metaphor--that of miners trapped in a "company town," where the perverted law of supply and demand means that the company supplies the work, so the company can demand whatever conditions are to its liking.

The book does not pretend to bipartisanship, and at times polemic detracts from persuasiveness. But the best of the essays--like Watt's, Kathy Newman's, and particularly Michael Bérubé's--back up their rousing calls to collective action with coolly logical evidence and solidly ordered argument. This is an important book for anyone who is concerned with the state of labor and/or higher education; these days, who can afford not to be?

I first read this book (original printing) as a college student for a class on the social situation in developing countries. This book is excellent. While brief, it gives an excellent introduction into the working conditions of women in sweatshops. Many black and white photos. While the book is slightly dated it is sad to note that the working conditions have not changed much.

I read the book again before being sent overseas to address problems developing at my company's factories. While being chartered to fix the technical problems, it was beneficial to be aware of the social issues. I hope my successors continue to influence management to make social improvements.

Read the book then do what you can to improve our planet.

With the notable exception of the Anglo-American versions, most revolutions are premised on the belief that the existing structure of society has been artificially imposed and that by altering that structure you can remake human beings and human nature in a new image. So the French Revolution required that the monarchy and the aristocracy be discarded and expected that egalitarianism and brotherhood would follow, as day follows night; meanwhile, Marxist Revolutions suppose that once capitalism and capitalists are done away with, the happy workers of the world will share and share alike. Of course, history has shown these revolutionary ideals to be absolutely ludicrous, and such revolutions have come a cropper when the ugly but immutable facts of human nature have come roaring back with a vengeance. This creates a rather hilarious situation whereby revolutionaries are continually being surprised by manifestations of the very characteristics which mankind has understood itself to have since time immemorial--greed, lust,selfishness, etc.. Barbara Ehrenreich is not only a socialist, but a radical feminist, which means that besides that Marxist vision, she also believes that once the patriarchy is overthrown, men and women will be coequal and will live in blessed harmony. This book then is based on her supposedly controversial discovery that the disintegration of the nuclear family, which has generally been blamed on feminism, owes just as much to the political desires of men. Duh?

Just step back for a second and think about Women's Liberation has meant for men. Basically, women have had to take on more economic responsibilities and more child-rearing responsibilities, while at the same time their mortality rates have begun to more closely match men's and, thanks to abortion of female children and these worsening health rates, their absolute numbers have begun to decline back towards those of men, or even below. In exchange, men have gotten to slough off economic responsibility for women and children, have been able to get out of child rearing responsibilities, and have gotten much freer access to intercourse with females. How can Ehrenreich possibly be surprised that men were willing participants in this process ?

GRADE : D

I thought that this book was well researched. That is why I was generous enough to give it two stars. However, the dryness of this novel cannot be described. This book dragged on for hours and at the end it was hard to make a point out of the book as a whole. I got as much out of the first page as I did from the middle 200. I do not recommend this book to anyone who expects a book that will not only flow well, but will also keep the reader even remotely interested.

Ehrenreich emphasizes that the economy changed dramatically during the post war boom, and the changes in the economy eventually demanded changes in the culture. Women have always worked, but they use to work at home on a farm. Even as late as the 30s and 40s America was still heavily agricutural. But during the 50s and 60s farm life died out in America, not totally of course, but to a large extent, replaced by big industry and then computers. On a farm a woman could do valuable work, in the new world of the 50s there was nothing for a woman to do but sit around and look pretty. You had millions of women of intelligence and strength and a desire for meaningful labor, and they no longer had an outlet, because they no longer lived on a farm. On a farm the could help their man and their family everyday, in a meaninful way. In the 50s, they were mere parasites, living at home in ease while the men worked. And eventualy, of course, the men got tired of that arrangement. To put it another way, on a farm, a man needs a wife. In the modern world, a man doesn't need a woman as much, or at least not in the same way. At some point, the culture had to adjust to the changes in the economy, and that adjustment was feminism. Women had to work so they could still contribute something meaninful to a marriage.

Barbara Ehrenreich is an excellent writer and has great insight on government, capitalism, hype, the news media, politicians, and just about everything she finds to criticize about our culture. She's got a wonderful sense of the ridiculous and a sharp wit, yet her writing appears to have true and great affection for her fellow women and men. This book isn't her best though. It's a collection of previously published essays, some of which have stood the test of time better than others. Still, worth reading, and a great look back at the infamous decade of greed.

down a twisted memory lane. Perhaps I'm biased because nine times out of ten I agree with Ehrenreich's politics and attitude, but whatever the reason, I love this book. Each essay is like a little time capsule, though not necessarily one that's good for our egos. As a child of the 80's, it also gives me insight into the cultural forces that shaped my view of the world - and makes me wonder if there should be some form of compensation! A very good read.

What can I say? Arlie Russell Hochschild says some interesting things about the state of the family unit in the 90s, but I just don't buy it. She writes pages and pages decrying capitalism and its corrupting influences after studying the employees at ONE COMPANY. If that seems credible enough for you, maybe you'll swallow this convuluted book. But even looking beyond her flawed argument, her writing style presents many problems. She writes not like she's presenting an intelligent sociological phenomenon, but like a novel already slated for the best seller list. And she provides case study after case study, in what looks like an attempt to bolster her thesis, but what turns out to be just boring. So try and skip chapters 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Actually, on second thought, just try and skip this book.

Summary:
The book is essentially a report of the findings of a 3-year qualitative study by the author, Arlie Hochschild, of a Fortune 500 company's 'family-friendly' practices. The author interviewed people in all tiers of the organization, conducted surveys, followed employees, and did participant observations to try to understand how the company's family-friendly policies were being implemented.

The result is The Time Bind. Though the company wants to give the impression that it is family-friendly, certain factors are working against the company actually living up to its policies. One is that for many of the managers at the company 'face time' or actually being at work is more important than actually doing anything at work. If your understanding of 'family-friendly' includes the possibility of working fewer hours, this is going to work against anyone that wants to participate in an hour reduction program.

Another thing that the author posits that is working against family friendliness is that companies are turning the work environment into a safe and comforting environment (though doing this actually covers up the temporariness inherent in companies) and in essence are replacing the home environment or turning the home environment into something more akin to what work environments have traditionally been seen as being (e.g. scheduling time for kids and spouses, running from one thing to the next, not being able to rest, etc.). The result is that many people actually want to spend more time at work then they do at home because they feel more relaxed at work then they do at home. (Read the book to understand this argument more fully.)

My Comments:
I think the book is great. Admittedly one could claim that the author is biased - perhaps she is a social democrat that hates capitalism and sees her efforts as a way of attacking capitalism. I guess that is a possibility. And it does lead to the one criticism I see in the book: Arlie Hochschild never openly states the perspective she brings to the table in exploring the ramifications of The Time Bind. At one point she does posit that children that are left home alone have a higher rate of drug and alcohol abuse than do kids that are not left home alone. So, I guess her bias does seep out through comments like that. But, for individuals that share her bias (which is probably most people), I think this book does a great job of illustrating that capitalism really does have some problems - one being the deemphasizing of the family and the focus on work instead. In this sense, I can't help but comment that perhaps Emile Durkheim, in claiming that the eventual dissolution of religious authority that lent solidarity to society would be replaced by the workplace, seems to find a home in The Time Bind.

Overall, the book is very well-written and engaging. The findings are presented using specific people and their stories which makes the book more like a morally laden collection of stories. But the scholarship does not appear to be influenced by the plight of the individuals. And, the author does not write this book at a scholarly level and fill it with sociological jargon. The book should be readable by anyone. I would highly recommend it.

Caveat:
There has been some follow up research done on Hocschild's theories about how the workplace has become more like home and vice versa. Most of the research says this isn't necessarily accurate. Though there could be some truth to this, the more likely cause of increased time spent working is due to managerial demands and more women working full time rather than people just wanting to be at work.

Hocschild's book can be criticized for being limited to only one case study -- a real Fortune 500 Company. That aside, she presents disturbing findings that do ring true with other observations on contemporary corporate culture. Most significant is the way in which an organization manipulates total quality managerial approaches to create work groups that begin to provide greater levels of social satisfaction than our families do. This is not to say that Hochschild blames the corporate top brass entirely -- she also points out the ways in which parents and spouses have willingly shifted thier time allotment and devotional energies from familiy settings to work groups.

Hochschild's book not only asks what becomes of the family if such a trend is prevalent, but also what becomes of an entire generation that may be placing more and more value on work-related achievements than on the nurturing experiences of family life. While again it should be pointed out that Hochschild's findings are based on a singular case study, her observations have a disturbing resonance with other looks at the fast and furious pace of attaining the American Dream. I would recommend this book to anyone who has questioned the supposed virture of climbing career ladders, as well as to those who have suspected that families are being gradually shoved out of the mainstream of American social life. Another work that is very related, and amplifies many of Hochschild's findings (while taking a more general perspective) is Stephen Bertman's excellent "Hyperculture," also available at Amazon. Perhaps we see here the beginning of the most significant issue of the next millenium: how do we define what is of REAL value as the assault on our time continues?

The most interesting novel to which I feel compelled to assign a two-star rating, if that's saying anything.

If it is supposed to be a science fiction novel, it is likely to disappoint most SF fans, except for those who really cherish something like K-Pax. Kipper, aka Steve, has been missing since making breakthroughs on a radical new computer game that is designed to be fun, but may also contain such wonderful secrets about the human experience that extraterrestrials will be returning to Earth to pick it up from ol' Kipper! This seems like a very interesting premise, doesn't it?--but the book actually deals with Steve's mother trying to locate her errant son, while also getting embroiled in schemes and skulduggery going on at her workplace, HEC, or (The) Human Ecology Complex. Actually, Della (the mother) does not so much get "embroiled" in the strange power-plays going on at the Complex, but more accurately, is played for a pawn by head scientific honcho, Doctor Leitbetter.

More and more, the intricacies of the plot all involve this Leitbetter in some sinister way. Della actually answers to a Dr. Hershey, but Dr. Leitbetter wants control of Dr. Hershey's "new disease" research, and so tempts Della into working against Dr. Hershey, by promising poor Della that he has valuable info about her son's whereabouts (Kipper used to work for Leitbetter at the Complex). Meanwhile, Leitbetter has Della's friend and potential lover Alex MacBride working on research about a forgotten German scientist, and possible Nazi sympathizer, who conducted human experiments to try to learn about the science of human pleasure. Danger erupts in MacBride's life, when a mysterious enclave of scientific (?!) gangsters race against him to acquire some of the German scientist's missing papers. And is any of this linked to Kipper's mythical computer-game which, at last report, supposedly was designed to activate the pleasure centers of the human brain?

The "new disease" that everyone wants to study slowly gets out of control; religious fanaticism disrupts procedure at HEC (nicknamed Hell); Dr. Leitbetter preaches that extraterrestrials can be expected to return to Earth ("return", because he maintains that Jesus, Buddha, and the like, were alien Visitors) to access our scientific knowledge once we're smart enough to encapsulate it in a perfect short-form that sums up all we have discovered; Alex keeps arranging dates with Della that he does not keep; Della's professional life falls apart as she spends time tracking her son and compromising her professional status by sabotaging Hershey for Leitbetter; and Leo, Della's estranged husband who originally drove their son Kipper away, may be in league with strange gangsters (who apparently have interest in Kipper's game, as well as documents written by dead German scientists).

So you have all these strange elements fused together, trying to make some point about science as a form of pleasure, but just as corrupted and misused as anything else that is supposed to represent our best features as a species (ie. love, religion, ambition). We do that which is pleasurable, and even the work of seeking knowledge gives pleasure, but like all other pleasures, it can be ruined, perverted.

That's the idea that I've tried to sift out of this slow-moving labyrinth of the bizarre and the mundane mixed together here. There is a sense that the book misses opportunities to really lay bare what it is trying to examine by spreading itself too thin. Cheesy suspense elements steal time from the philosophical content, which in turn is pushed aside by sputtering romantic filler, which competes with religious commentary, which is uncomfortably glued to the SF undercurrent which is so underdeveloped until the quick ending...that the overall of effect is of deepness missed.

In keeping with the confusion, let me say this is a two-and-a-half star book, with lots of three-star glimmerings ruined by two-star mundaneness. You decide.

Barbara Ehrenreich's novel, KIPPER'S GAME is an incisive and complex, but, ultimately, bleak, thought experiment. The world she creates in this thoughtful technological thriller is intriguing and credible. In particular, Ehrenreich captures effectively the experience of the main character, Della, whose search for her son drives the narrative. Della's quest is more than just a plot device, however. She is at a cross-roads in her life caused by seemingly tragic circumstances that allow her the chance to flourish, if she can ask the right questions of herself. This character's personal challenge adds human depth to an otherwise grim social commentary about environmental and political ruin. Overall, Ehrenreich raises important issues and poses interesting problems. However, the scope of the novel is too ambitious and the resolution too unsatisfying to strongly recommend it. Fans of techno thrillers who prefer a philosophical bent to their plots are the best audience for this novel.

I read this book two years ago, and still cannot get it out of my head. While it is bleak, it is also inspirational. I had given up on the idea of a modern 'novel of ideas' until reading this novel, which was somewhat cynically marketed as a thriller. It IS a thriller, but in a deeper, more resonant way than a Stephen King or Tom Clancy.

You know those movies that promise you a glimpse behind the facade, a chance at seeing things you haven't before? Then, of course, the movie turns out to be a cheesy full-length chase scene? This was almost the opposite. A philosophical treatise in pulp form.

Personally,this book may be on the extreme side. Some of these suggestions might be nice, but many of them are unpractical. The media gives people what they want essentially, in order to make a change in it, it does not need to become an issue in political debate. It needs to become an issue in the hearts of people. People need to be educated enough to find for themselves what is the truth. If the people seek the truth, the media that provides it will be the most successful. Its a simple business, supply and demand.

I have just finished this book for an Electronics Media class I am taking at USF.

Although I agree with most of the complaints that the authors expound about the problems with global corporations and the current state of the media today, I do not see their Socialist fixes as any kind of real solution. In fact, in many instances, they are just power grabs by the Left to get you to pay for their programs (ie National Public Radio and Public Television, which are dominated by the Left).

I agree with the concept of microradio stations to help spread media access around, but not their demand for government subsidies to help the "less fortunate" pay for their stations. They are not that expensive to buy and maintain.

I believe a more Libertarian approach to open media access would be more productive than the authors brand of Socialist "fixes"... which in the end would probably just lead to abuses by the Left.

But it is a good read from the point-of-view of defining all that is wrong with the current state of the media today and why it is out of control.

This indepth analysis should put an end to the myth of liberal bias in the media. As the Left has been saying for years, the media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them. We seem to be tumbling towards a world in which everything is owned by a relatively few number of conjoined companies whose activities are reported on by a handful of aqenda-driven media giants all bent on diseminating a particular view of predigested news aimed at the lowest common denominator. There has to be another way although, like a previous reviewer, I'm not sure all the solutions in this book will work. I would also like to point out that 90% of National Public Radio's funding comes from donations made by listeners and from corporate underwriting. Only 10% of the NPR budget comes from the federal and state governments and all of that is in the form of grants used for specific programs (science, history, music, literature, etc).

As the mother of five that relied on childcare during the many years of single parenting I think we tend to concentrate too much on the elite and their need for childcare. The notion that this childcare contributes to the foreign exchange is a little off base when in reality it contributes to an underground economy because the salaries are mostly off the books and taxes are not paid in any form. Safety issues also arise when you consider that most of the illegeal aliens caring for our children have never had childhood immunizations, and refuse the TB test. This may sound unimportant and nit picking but the reality is diseases we thought were erradicated like whooping cough can be traced to the unimmunized worker. Leaving your children behind to take care of mine is something we as a nation should give more thought about.

...Nevertheless, this book gives the reader valuable insight into the impact and opinions of women migrant workers in the service trades. All of the anthologized authors write in an accessible style free of academic jargon. I was particularly interested in the articles which did not have an American viewpoint and which presented the views of the women (and occasionally men) involved. For example, in various essays we get to meet Dominican women in the sex trade hoping to form relationships with European men; a college-educated Vietnamese women entering into an arranged marriage with an immigrant man holding an unskilled job in the U.S.; Filipina household workers laughing about the rules proposed by prospective Hong Kong employers; and a Sri Lankan man taking over the traditional woman's role to assist migrant relatives working in Saudi Arabia.

There are some gaps here, such as the lack of first-person narratives and the views of Eastern European women working in Western Europe, but no anthology can be all-inclusive. This book is a good start and will be an intersting learning experience for most readers.

The authors grotesquely devalue the entire role of Nursing in modern society. I pity the poor members of the public who read this title and mistake it for an academic work.

Nursing in contemporary society grew out of a legitimate need... a need that was influenced by society ---not as a woman's response to being 'outlawed' from practicing medicine, as the authors would have you believe. As the global population continues to live longer, and the need for skilled healthcare workers continues to rises, nurses will continue to answer humanities call by evolving into new roles- as they have for centuries [when they weren't being burned as witches].

I found the exaltation of Florence Nightingale to be quite misleading as well. True, Ms. Nightingale helped establish a school of nursing, but she also violently opposed the idea of MEN in nursing, she did not believe that nurses should have higher education [other than her training school, of course], and did not believe nurses should receive a high wage.

On the whole, I found the text to be lacking in overall academic merit [to say the least]. Save your money.

This pamphlet is a discussion of two historical periods: medieval times when females healers were branded as witches and burned at the stake, and the nineteenth century when women were systematically barred from medical studies. While the historical facts may be accurate, the difficulty is that the authors view medicine as the only viable role for women in the healthcare field. They quickly dismiss the role of nurses and other ancillary healthcare workers because they are not the bosses in the healthcare delivery system. Their goal is to convince the reader that until women dominate medicine, there is little that they can offer patients in their attempts to maintain health. Ardent feminists will enjoy this book. However, those who believe that there is more to maintaining or regaining health than pills and surgery will find it a denegration of the work of those who play other roles in healthcare delivery.

The small size of this pamphlet belies its content. Far from being unsubstantiated and poorly researched, it has an annotated bibliography of 16 sources, spanning from the medieval "Malleus Malificarum" to "American Medicine and the Public Interest" (from Yale University Press). This little book is a consice and scholarly work of history, drwing connections between established events that throws the entire course of medical history into a striking new light. A MUST read for anyone even marginally involved in the health field; even more so for Doctors or health practitioners who wish to know more clearly the roots of their field.

Where do I begin with this book, littered with writings by second-hand-dealers of information from holders of glorified government jobs (academics)? Armchair leaders, who would perish without the comfort of the Ivory Tower (Noam Chomsky). I should start by saying that such foolishness could only come from a university setting. In no other case would people spend so much time trying to talk away things that have been demonstrated to be foolish by the experience of others.

A few examples:

1. Manning Marable's article compares Booker T. Washington to Louis Farrakhan? Huh? Huh? Huh? This person is selling himself as a professor of history, yet he doesn't know that the main idea of what Washington said was to AVOID trying to find a political resolution to every single problem? Louis Farrakhan generates lots of heat but doesn't shed very much light on what would be *realistic* solutions to the problems in black America.

2. Empty Phrases used every third page or so, like "People of Color." Anyone who can read the Statstical Abstract of the United States knows that peole of color have nothing in common other than being non-white. The similarities stop right there in terms of income, incarceration rates and representation in "higher" professions. Everyone seems to have looked right past this in their quest to have some subjects to generate a leadership position for himself.

3. There are almost no specific numbers or studies here. So Howard Zinn will say things like: "We are wealthy enough for full employment and free education as well a free health care for everyone." But other countries (i.e., Canada and Britain) have found out that it is one thing to promise something and then quite another to support the bureaucracy that will carry this out. A systematic study of what has really happened in other countries that have tried these grandiose ideas might change the minds of these academics. But, as always, evidence is neither mentioned nor presented. But these articles are ALL very light in terms of their analytical gravitas.

Bottom line #1: Black America has been set back a good long way by relying on arguments like these presented in this book. If anything, reading this book has made me even MORE conservative. Bottom line #2: The government cannot legislate every problem out of existence. (See Sub-Saharan Africa/ China for textbook examples.)

This slim book is a nice introduction to a lot of amazing political writers. It is just an introduction and does not go into any real depth. At the cost, it is not worth it to get the hardcover. Get the paperback.