The Office and The Feminine Mystique


On the sitcom The Office, as in real life, middle class working mothers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They often face the choice of either compromising their careers—working part-time or quitting altogether—or feeling like absent mothers. Men, on the other hand, are typically not held to the same standard. Rarely do employers worry whether their male employees will have children and scale back their working hours. Seldom do people worry whether men can “have it all.” The Office paints a fairly balanced portrait of what it means when a husband and wife clash over their careers and their families. In the evolving relationship of Pam and Jim in the American version of the series, the married coworkers are equally responsible for their marriage’s breakdown, and they should be equally responsible for fixing it—if it can, in fact, be fixed.

The show’s central relationship echoes dynamics that feminist writers have pointed out for decades. This week is the 50th anniversary of the Feminine Mystique, the book which so clearly articulated the tension between the roles expected of women in their work and home lives. Writer Stephanie Coontz spelled out the real-life statistics behind this continuing conflict this week in a great New York Times piece:

When family and work obligations collide, mothers remain much more likely than fathers to cut back or drop out of work. But unlike the situation in the 1960s, this is not because most people believe this is the preferable order of things. Rather, it is often a reasonable response to the fact that our political and economic institutions lag way behind our personal ideals….Female professionals are twice as likely to quit work as other married mothers when their husbands work 50 hours or more a week and more than three times more likely to quit when their husbands work 60 hours or more.

Though Jim and Pam’s relationship on The Office has seemed, well, perfect, their romance isn’t infallible. What threatens to tear them apart recently is the tension between Jim’s time away from the family running a new business in Philadelphia and Pam’s desire to stay in Scranton with her burgeoning art work and steady job. Not to mention Pam has been subtly flirting with Brian, a boom mic operator and part of the documentary crew that has been following the office’s workers for years.

But it’s not plot device/brilliant twist Brian who is truly a threat to the Halperts. The real question is: Does the couple want to give up on their professional dreams in order to maintain their personal lives? And, as in real life, will Pam rather than Jim end up making outsize career sacrifices in order to keep the family together? It’s the same question women have been asking aloud for fifty years. 

To be sure, some of us aren’t lucky enough to have this dilemma. Single mothers without a financial safety net have no choice but to work. And those of us without jobs in this post-recession era struggle to land employment at all, let alone a job that offers family-friendly policies. But for middle class couples who are faced with the challenge of balancing work and family, it’s often working moms who must take a backseat to their husband’s careers.

In the Office episode “Vandalism,” Jim and Darryl are roommates in the Philadelphia, both working part-time. Jim realizes he enjoys his time apart from his family, focusing solely on work and finally allowed to realize his potential beyond the small world of Dunder Mifflin. Meanwhile, Pam has been commissioned by the city of Scranton to paint a mural on the wall of Dunder Mifflin’s warehouse. When someone from the warehouse defaces the project and attacks Pam, Brian from the documentary crew swoops in to save her. She’s grateful not only because he rescues her but because, in defending Pam, he defends the thing that gives her life meaning—her art. Both Jim and Pam want to be recognized for their achievements, but this means staying in respective cities, which threatens to tear apart their family.

WomansWork_TheOffice_JimPamSo in the episode “Moving On,” Pam indulges Jim and goes on a job interview for an office manager position in Philadelphia. Even though Jim excluded her from his decision to take a job outside of Scranton, she decides to see if life in Philadelphia might be for her. Instead, she discovers that her prospective job is painfully similar to the one she had about ten years ago—complete with Michael Scott-like boss played by Bob Odenkirk. That night, Pam tells Jim, “I don’t know if I want this.” He says, “This is a little out of left field,” he says. She responds, “Is it?” Their resentments have been simmering throughout the season: Both Jim and Pam feel that the other underappreciates their work. And for Pam in particular, she knows that if she takes this job, or any job, in Philadelphia, it symbolizes that her career isn’t as important as Jim’s. The viewer is left to wonder not only, what will happen to Jim and Pam but whether a TV couple can get a Hollywood ending.

As previously discussed, in the real world, it’s not lack of ambition that holds women back. It’s gender bias—as well as race bias and class bias. And while, like Pam, we experience these professional restraints on a profoundly personal level, it’s government and corporate policies that limit our choices as well.

Perhaps Jim and Pam can reach a compromise that honors both partners’ wishes for meaningful work outside the home. Or perhaps, in true documentary style, Pam is a reflection of the average middle class American woman, oftentimes a cipher in the challenge to balance work and family.


Read more of this guest blog Women’s Work, which explores TV portrayals of young women in the workforce.

by Grace Bello
View profile »

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

7 Comments Have Been Posted


Here is the thing that bothers me about this...

I looked up the distance between Scranton and Philly, and it's 2 hours. It seems to me that moving into a middle area so that each person has about an hour commute is a fair and easy compromise here. It's not ideal to live an hour away from your job, but it's not a crazy concept either.

I totally think this article is on point, I just don't think that the show is. There is a clear and equitable solution available and I wonder if the show will pursue it.

They probably will pursue it,

They probably will pursue it, and it had to have been written in such a way to set them up for this solution (because really, if they wanted this to be a bigger issue they would have picked a locale that was further away for Jim's new job). But this, although realistic (obviously this is a solution that people in this situation and living and working this exact distance apart COULD pursue), is disappointing because they will avoid having to explore the real issues that this post is pointing out. Happy tv compromise, you know, because the distance is the only thing wrong in this situation!

Then where would the kids go

Then where would the kids go to daycare? In the middle so each parent is an hour away? Should they too have to sit in the car an hour to school and daycare? It's not that easy a solution.

Of course not, but it's

Of course not, but it's better than their marriage breaking up. I guess I don't see it as that big of a deal. People deal with that kind of thing all the time.

It's The Political Economy, Stupid!

Okay, I'm not calling anyone stupid, but the struggle between domestic bliss and professional success seems motivated by class aspirations that are themselves loaded with gender biases. It calls less for thinking how to "even the playing-field", than raising questions about the game (i.e. career) everyone is supposed to want to play. Betty Friedan's intervention into the inequality of access to the wage-system paid important lip-service to the idea that women are not defined by an essential disposition for domestic work, but she herself said she shared little else with feminists, and so we have to be on guard for how the work-life balance rhetorically hems in women from the get go.

No Commute

As a mother I cannot imagine having to commute my children two hours in a car everyday. (with no traffic issues) Two hours in the car would affect how I planned shopping, doctor's appointments, emergencies when one parent has to go pick up the child, delayed weather days, my own personal life, after school activities, hobbies....etc. This couple has been shown to have very little family support on the show which is a reality for most of us, they would have to rely on paid help further reducing their income with expensive commutes.

Jim is behaving exactly like he would if he did not have a wife and children, and that is the problem.

testament to the show

It's a testament to the show that we are all so moved by Jim and Pam's dilemma. Like others commenting, I also looked up the distance between the two cities. It occurred to me that the show only gives us a peek into the characters' lives. I'm imagining that "daycare" for the kids includes retired grandparents located nearby, and they'd lose those kinds of supports as well with a move. It's not clear what the change of income would be like either, especially if Pam has to give up her job. Pam is being the "responsible" one, and Jim is taking a huge risk to pursue a dream. It's not an easy thing to work out, and no matter what choice is made, one side is going to resent it.

Having watch Pam and JIm's story for almost a decade, we're all hoping they can work out. If they can't, is there hope for any of us?

Add new comment