In reading through the preface to the book, I was struck by one paragraph in particular:
"Today, women's lives are more important to society and more complicated than ever. The media bombard us with images of women who dash from job to children to kitchen, juggling the demands with cool grace. Most women do not find the juggling easy, especially when the demands take the form of demanding employers and sick or unhappy children. Many women want rewarding work even as they cherish traditional family values. Many want to be respected as competent workers even as they continue to enjoy the pleasures of femininity. Most cherish their independence even as they want binding ties to a man and children. The women to whom I have been listening do not want to sacrifice one side of their lives to another, but living with the tensions has taught them that no one can "have it all"(3).
This fact, which women who have a career and children (I have neither!) can probably appreciate more than I, is sad but true. No one (not even men) can have it all. Not if they want to be a good parent and a good employee. Hard choices have to be made. As Christians we should know this all the more. Jesus did not ever say, "Amen I say to you, I came so that you all might have an easier time of it!"
Where did we pick up the idea that we are entitled to the world, or that, if we try to have it all, it shouldn't be tremendously hard? Perhaps the Feminist movement, particularly that of the 1960's and 70's?
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that women should not work outside the home if that is what is best for them and their families. I am not saying that women deserve to have terrible lives if they choose to have career and family. But what I am saying is that, something has got to give. It is the rare woman who can balance career, marriage, and children and come out a winner on all three fronts. The 1960's Feminist movement told us it would help us with that. They said they would make childcare more equitable, so that women could pursue work outside the home. They said they would tenaciously advocate for equal pay for equal work; then women would make more money, men wouldn't have to work so hard, and household duties could be distributed more evenly. Well, here we are 40 years later, and women still do the majority of household tasks and earn 71 cents for every male dollar.
But look at the bright side, we have earned ourselves the equal right to a 70 hour work week!
It seems to me like E F-G is making the point that somewhere along the line, the Feminist elite lost sight of what it is women want most; to figure out how to juggle all these things. They don't want to be told that the solution is to ignore their husbands and children (or worse yet, have neither), but to see other women who are genuine advocates for the choices women make based on what's best for them and their families.
Though her research is dated I think E F-G's overall point is still valid. I am interested to see how she will develop this claim further, and also what solutions to the still unanswered question of "Who will raise the children?", she comes up with.
What do you all think? Is it possible to "have it all" while keeping career, marriage, and children healthy? How can we provide real solutions for women, ones that accept that *most* women want husbands, children, and careers?
Dust it off
5 years ago
First of all, let me say, there is documented evidence that the influx of women into the work force has forced stagnation on real salaries for everyone. Economically that makes sense because of your classic supply and demand model.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's really "having it all" that people have when both parents must work outside the home. In our situation, it is a financial necessity. I took out college loans and my husband I have a mortgage and van payment (van is almost paid off...yay!). I think most women who work do actually HAVE to...
And we tried to go the route for me to Stay at home before...we cut everything out...everything! and we still couldn't make ends meet on his salary alone...so I remained at work. And we didn't (don't!!!) even have child care to pay for since my husband works nights/weekends and I work days. We tag-team parent. I suppose people think that is bad...but it works for us. We have our family time on a couple of weeknights and during the day on weekends...I suppose some might say my family is "failing" but we seem to make it work ok. The girls get good grades and enjoy school,the babies are happy...sure, Mom and Dad are a bit tired...but we always figure...this period of our lives will pass so quickly (raising our children).
I have never met any women personally who felt like they had it all with career, marriage and family. Almost always the career suffers. In some cases, family suffers for a successful career.
What I have experienced as a woman in corporate America is a sort of "glass ceiling" I suppose...but I recognize it is brought on by my willingness to be open to life in my marriage. I have four children and I don't shout from the rooftops that "I am DONE!!!" Therefore, many opportunities have passed me by while I was on maternity leave...(not literally...but I am using a bit of hyperbole to make the point that I have found that having children ... especially more than 1 or 2...stalls many a working woman's advancement).
I plan to instill in my children the belief that if they would stay out of all debt - including those horrid college loans - they will be able to live their lives more freely. Sure, school will take longer, saving up and paying for it themselves (we will help, but we refuse to bankroll college)...but by avoiding that disastrous decision, perhaps if/when they do marry or even if they discern a vocation...money or debt is not what will hold them back.
This is from my personal experience in the work force. I have run into the women who want marriage and career but no children. I have (sadly) worked for a female boss who absolutely does not understand what is rewarding about cleaning up spit-up (direct quote: "there is no value in that...") But I have experienced overwhelmingly many women who are financially in a situation in their families where they MUST work and that is the sadness of it all.
I do not think that it is possible (for more than a small minority) to "have it all" at one time if "all" includes the typical American version of a successful career. At my college graduation the president basically told us that we could have it all if we accepted that we would not have it all immediately or at the same time. If you choose to have a baby at 19 you are probably not going to graduate from college at 21. If you choose to pursue tenure at a university or partnership in an exclusive law firm on schedule you are probably not going to be able to have biological children that you raise yourself. And the whole concept of "having it all" is actually quite elitist anyway.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I don't think that we should just accept that we must chose family *or* meaningful employment. Men got it wrong when they chose 60-hour work weeks over family. Instead of joining men in their failure, women should work to reshape a society which both men and women can be good parents. It is a shame for either sex to miss out on their children's childhood because they are in business school or seeking tenure. There is no reason that business schools can't be adjusted to add another year and thus make the entire time more flexible for parenting. Universities could allow professors to remain on track for tenure while having some semesters where they only teach one class, giving candidates 5 years to publish another book, etc. etc. We really can reshape society if only we cared enough about family.
To start off I don't think anyone can have it all, I see a lot of men lacking in quality time with their friends and families because of "careers".
ReplyDeleteBut I'd like to say since when does everyone need a career? Now in my mind a career and a job are different things. My husband and I both have jobs, they pay the bills and allow us a better quality of life, but they aren't "our lives". There are no ladders to climb or races to run. So I ask why does everyone need a career? Careers in my mind take a lot more time, work and struggle than just having a job and there are a lot of jobs that just allow you to work, get paid and have free time to do other things (in my mind the more important things).
Personally, I think if you want a career you have to be willing to give up on other parts of your life and I think that a lot of people don't realize this. I think a lot of people would feel better if they realized (and our society recognized) that just having a job, that you can do well and enjoy most of the time and that pays the bills and gives you and your family the opportunities it needs, is enough.
I sympathize with Michelle though, since we are trying to add kids into our family, we realize that we'll still both have to work for a long time. While both of our salaries are good together, neither of us makes enough for us to live on alone. However this has inspired us to go back to school (for me) and finish a degree (him) in areas that will allow us to have jobs (not careers) in areas that will support what we want with our families. We might both have work the rest of our lives, but we're trying to do so in a mindful way towards our future family.
p.s. and Michelle the more good financial ground you give you kids the better! Good for you! So many parents have to work solely because of debt like that.
Good point Molly; the distinction between career and job. Not everyone needs a career, but most everyone needs a job. I'd even wager to say that a SAHM is a job, but not so much a career? Or maybe it goes into vocation territory.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that many women have to work and may not actually want to is important to mention. I guess I think that's actually something of an injustice; that people are not free to raise their children as they'd like, because they are trapped by an economic system that puts ever more pressure on people to work harder, have more, and even sometimes your hardest still isn't enough. Lest I get on a soapbox of some kind, I'll say thats a post for another day!
And Michelle, thanks for sharing your take as a career mom, and anyone who'd say your family is failing, would be wrong!
For the sake of clarification, not that we're arguing on it, but just in case. Here's the definition of a career (dictionary.com) and a job
ReplyDeleteCareer - an occupation or profession, esp. one requiring special training, followed as one's lifework:
Job - A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
A position in which one is employed.
and just for the heck of it
Occupation - a person's usual or principal work or business, esp. as a means of earning a living; vocation:
Based on these definitions I'd say a SAHM is a career!
Yeah, I would agree. I guess I've never thought a whole lot about the distinctions between them, and used the terms somewhat interchangably.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you can "have it all". Something will get neglected. I think it's possible to have a job or a career and a family, and to do both fairly well. However, I think there will be situations like Michelle mentioned that you will get passed over at a job if your family comes first. Or if you do all that you can for your career, your family will suffer. There is no way to get the "everything" out of both.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I've never been a big career person. I mean, I have a career, and I like it a lot, but I'm not looking to make the most money or be the most prestigious or any of that. I just want to do my job well. At the end of the day, that's what's most important (well, I do want fair compensation also.)
Michelle- I have a friend that does the same kind of serial parenting. It works well for them, too. It may not be absolutely perfect, but they love not having to put their little guy in daycare.
I think in today's day and age, as Rosie the Riveter would say, we CAN do it (work outside of the home)...and we're fortunate to have that as an option.
ReplyDeleteBut, I also think Feminism was originally founded on the principle that women should be valued...but not at the expense of others. At 20, I worked in daycare...and saw many children who would be there 62 hours a week! Every morning: 6am drop off, every evening: 6:30pm pick-up. Ouch! This is a sad phenomenon. Children don't raise themselves...and shouldn't take the brunt of women in the workplace.
Sarah - I marked this paragraph and wrote 'Exactly!' in the margins. It sums up so much for me so well.
ReplyDeleteKatie - I see the day care phenomenon every day, as I am the Director of a (large) Child Care Center here in my town.
In reading the descriptions above, I'd say this position of mine is somewhere between a 'job' and a 'career' - I'm at the top of my ladder (I suppose I could be an owner, but no thanks), and I love what I do and I give 110% while I'm there. But, when I'm home...I'm home and I'm not worried about what might be happening at the center.
I also took this position because I wanted to, not because financially I needed to (thought emotionally, I did). I am also a consultant with PartyLite and when hubs and I moved almost 2 years ago, we decided that I would do PartyLite full time so that when we were ready to start a family, I would be able to work from home (I, like Michelle, will have to work, not so much because of debt anymore, but because my husband's career doesn't pay enough to make all the ends meet alone). But what I found was that while my job with PartyLite is fun, rewarding, pays well, and has great perks - it's not what drives me. It's not what I'm passionate about. And what I learned is that I need to be passionate about what I'm doing.
I will say though, that as I considered what job/career I would like to have, I took into consideration what it would mean when we have children. The facts that my (future) child would be at work with me; that I would have my own office and could have an infant with me in my office; that I could handpick that classroom my child will be in; and that I would get discounted, maybe even free, childcare all played into my decision.
I feel very strongly that the environment a woman chooses to work in affects whether she can successfully have a career and a family. Women who work as teachers or in childcare or other female-dominated, child-serving positions tend to have an easier time of it when needing to put family first. When a teacher gets pregnant, rarely (in my experience) does she have to worry about her position being there after maternity leave, or being passed up for a position as principal because of maternity but rather is excited to share her news because most around her will be excited too. Rarely would a woman have to explain herself as to why she's having more children. When one of the teachers at my center needs to go pick up a sick child from school, the response is 'absolutely, I hope s/he feels better' - because we know that we are calling parents throughout the day to come get their children.
Ok, I think I've finally 'got to the point' - that the industry/environment a woman works in truly can dictate just how difficult it is to work outside the home (because I don't think for anyone is it easy to work outside the home and have a family - just having a family is hard!).
Oh, and Michelle - your family is definitely NOT failing, it is thriving and can teach us all how to make ends meet, but keep family front and center!
ReplyDeleteRebecca - I completely agree with your point that the field a woman chooses to work in is key in her ability to "have it all." I would take the point one step further to say that not just female-dominated industries (e.g. teaching) fit this bill. I worked for a fortune 10 company for 8 years and have been a federal employee now for almost 3 -- both have had very wonderful work-life options for women and men who wish to buck the 60 hour per week stereotype of working professionals.
ReplyDeleteAt my corporate job, even though I didn't have children at the time, I would have had the option to scale back to part-time employment, work from home or even job share with another individual who sought more time with their own family. To those who might feel the job-sharing option would be frowned upon by the (largely middle-age male) management, in fact the opposite was true. Job sharing was particularly attractive to management because often it meant that they had two people working slightly more than part-time and it only counted as one "head" in their department. In essence, they were getting one-and-a-half employees for the price of one. Management practically fought over job-sharers.
In my current job with the government, I also have the option to work from home, to have a flexible work schedule and to temporarily work part time through the family medical leave act. I didn't get a paid maternity leave and I can't go part time, but at least this small degree of flexibility (plus the fact that my office building has a lactation room, our benefits package includes a dependent care savings account, etc.) is thus far making my ability to work and parent pretty do-able.
That said, I can't imagine doing this without my husband. We live rather modestly, but there are still bills to be paid and I certainly couldn't do it on my salary alone (nor could he). Our marriage is a partnership -- emotionally, financially, spiritually -- and our approach to parenting is going to be the same. Between the two of us, we will be able to cover all the well baby visits, all the sick days and all the special events in school, sports, or whatever.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I do think that we'll be able to have it all. Sure, they'll be times when he or I am on a business trip for a t-ball game or when one of us can't make it home in time for a family dinner, but (hopefully) those occassions will be few and far between and there will always be at least one parent present.
This feeds right into Michelle's point about tag-team parenting. Although my hubby and I don't work opposite shifts, we certainly expect times when only one of us will be able to attend that doctors appointment. I don't think that makes us bad parents at all. Hopefully, it also helps to reinforce the point to our kid(s) that Mom and Dad are a team and that we communicate with one another to ensure that someone is always there for them when they need us.