Over the past few decades, gender issues have been increasingly visible in public discourse. Many advocates champion the progress that has been made, resulting in more women in positions of political power and higher education, as well as the paid workforce in general, all historically male-dominated fields. However, a recent New York Times article raises intriguing and provocative questions about just where these trends are taking us, and about how women view their roles as both mothers and workers in high-powered careers.
September 20th's "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood" reports that of interviewed students, "60 percent said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years." Interviews with many current Ivy League students indicate a distinct interest among women to play the role of stay-at-home mom, at least during children's first several years. Indeed, many "women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing." However, interviews with alumni confirm that males are more likely than females to list paid employment as their primary activity.Some readers reacted to this article with indignant protest. They were upset by the idea that "while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children." These readers angrily asked why these women shouldn't be able both to raise their children and have a high-powered career? After all, higher education, Ivy League or not, has the goal of preparing both male and female alumni to be leaders in and contributors to society.
Other readers, however, completely understood women's interest in exclusively raising children. As the argument says, mothers have a unique bond with their children. It is crucial for that bond to remain strong, particularly in a child's earliest years. Indeed, many of the young women interviewed stressed the importance of a parent's presence during a child's formative years.
It cannot be surprising that many readers were disturbed by the findings reported in the article. These readers argued that women must not revert back to their traditional role as the housewife, turning their backs on the rights and freedoms that took centuries to achieve. In addition, the article indicates that many women may not even envision other lifestyles for themselves. "Why don't they envision their husbands or partners staying home while they work full time, for example?" asks Women and Gender Studies Professor Amy Allen.
But why is motherhood not seen as a leadership role in itself? My own mother gave up her career when my oldest brother was born, and has not returned since. I'm not sure that I could ever do this, but her assurance that she has absolutely no regrets about her decision, and that raising us was more rewarding than any career could have been, makes me feel that she has some kind of wisdom that I do not, some broader understanding of what it means to be a mother and to raise a family that someone who has never done it could not possibly understand. Before she told me all this, I was pretty sure that, although I certainly want to have a family, a high-powered career would ultimately be just as important to me. But now, I, like many other women, know that when that time in my life arrives, I will have difficult decisions to make.
What most everyone can agree on, however, is that, due to historical gender roles and constraints, men are not put in the same position as women when it comes to balancing work and family. Stay-at-home dads are clearly rarer than stay-at-home moms. Consequently, it would be foolish and counterproductive to deny and ignore the unique situation that new mothers find themselves in. Women (for now, at least) can choose whether to prioritize work or family, but as Laura Pearlstein rightly said in Thursday's The Dartmouth, it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. What is more important is that we examine whether either one must be prioritized at all; a career is certainly possible (whether it is desirable is debatable) along with the raising of children. Nevertheless, this is a choice that must be faced at some point in most women's lifetimes. And, being Dartmouth students, the pressure to succeed in the world of paid employment and leadership is high. So how do we go about reconciling these two competing demands?
The difficult answer perhaps lies in the structure and policies of workplaces. If more accommodations were made, in terms of hours and time off, for both men and women to spend time with their families, then the choice between work and family would not need to be a choice at all. Long-term, structural changes would alter both the way women and men experience parenthood and employment, and the way society as a whole perceives gender roles.
In the meantime, however, we must view these educated women's intentions not with anger or denial, but with admiration. Indeed, feminism is not only about women entering realms that were previously only occupied by men. True progress for women also means simply the freedom to be able to choose amongst many life paths, not all of them mutually exclusive. Consequently, those women who choose to give up or postpone their careers in favor of being a stay-at-home mom must not be berated or looked down on because of this decision. Although I believe that it is absolutely crucial to prepare women for high-powered careers with precisely the same enthusiasm and rigor that men experience, it would nevertheless be useful for women to also discuss how parenthood will fit into their long-term plans, as well as for places of employment to better take this dilemma into account when designing work policies. It may yet be possible and desirable for women to "have it all," but that may require us to change our attitudes about what "it all" means.
