Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Women Want: A Rebuttal to the Times

By Linda Basch and Ilene Lang and Deborah Merrill-Sands, AlterNet. Posted October 3, 2005.


A recent Times trend-piece on over-achieving women headed for homemaking sparked furious debate; the authors argue for a new frame.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Louise Story's article, "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood" (New York Times, Sept. 20), refueled debate in a world where anecdote trumps evidence, leaving the public misled and researchers baffled once again. But rather than grant these stories more power, researchers and the press must widen the angle, refocus the lens, re-release the facts, and guide the emphasis back to where it belongs: on the American workplace at large.

Last week's outcry suggests a growing, healthy weariness with yet another false alarm about women opting out. Response to Story's piece was as quick as it was smart: Letters printed in the Times the following day flagged the extreme class and race bias implicit in Story's piece. Bloggers countered the "news" with counter-anecdotes and cutting remarks, while high-profile editors publicly interrogated journalistic standards. Women wrote letters to editors urging broader coverage of a wider range of women's work/life concerns, and the Times' own Nicholas Kulish deftly questioned the return to Harriet and Ozzie-like stereotypes. As a coalition of researchers, we join and redouble these efforts to reframe the national conversation about women's options, choices, and needs by letting the facts speak for themselves.

Fact: Few American women can afford to opt out.

Though the focus of much of last week's rebuttal, it bears repeating: Among married-couple families in this country, dual incomes are the norm. In 2003, 58% of married-couple families were composed of two earners. For most black women, who are about half as likely as white women to be married, for most immigrant women, and for most white women as well, opting out does not even enter the radar. Ivy-educated wives of high-earning men may be choosing to stay at home for a while, but they are certainly not leading the nation's women (the majority of whom must work) in a mass exodus from the workplace.

Fact: Women -- younger, married, and well-off -- value financial independence and professional identity.

In a society where dual incomes are vital to economic survival, professional ambition is something most women take seriously. Story's article implies that younger women are uninterested in professional success, that they're opting out before they ever opt in. Research proves otherwise. According to a Simmons College School of Management study from April 2003, 97% of the over 3,000 teen girls surveyed expected to provide financially for themselves and/or their families. Only 3% said they thought someone else would support them, and only 6% said that they would leave their jobs after having children and never return. Girls of color reported higher expectations for future financial responsibilities than white girls, with 85% of African American girls expecting to support themselves and their family, 86% of Hispanic, and 83% of Asian American, compared to 77% of Caucasian.

Fact: Young women aspire to lead; and not simply at home.

Another Simmons study of 570 professional women found that 55% of women under 34 aspired to top leadership, a higher percentage than the 45% of their older female colleagues. Notably, there was no statistical difference in the ambitions of women with or without children across the board. Why, then do some highly ambitious women leave great jobs? Lower pay, barriers to promotion, inadequate childcare and eldercare, and intractable workplaces. These are the issues meriting front page attention.

Fact: Women want ways to step off the career track momentarily but later get back on.

The women in Story's tale may be stepping off the track to stay at home for now or think they will work for a while and then step off permanently, but statistics show that most will want to opt back in. Sylvia Hewlett's Hidden Brain Drain Task Force reports that 37% of American women now pursue non-linear paths, meaning that more than a third of working women are on-ramping and off-ramping during their careers, while 58% take other "scenic routes" (flexible work options). The problem is not that women shun high-power careers but that the traditional linear career path has yet to be reconceived to include women in the structures for success. To wit: many women over 40 re-enter today's workforce with renewed energy and creativity, but the workplace has yet to accommodate them well. And notably, for many women of color, professional struggle -- whether it's to get on and/or back on -- never ends. A Catalyst study, Women of Color in Corporate Management, revealed that higher percentages of women of color found barriers to advancement in the workplace, such as lack of a mentor (33%) and lack of company role models of the same racial/ethnic group (16%), to be greater than barriers arising from familial commitments (4%).


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Linda Basch, PhD, is President of the National Council for Research on Women; Ilene Lang is President of Catalyst; and Deborah Merrill-Sands, PhD, is Dean and Co-Founder of the Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons College School of Management.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Additional antecdotal evidence
Posted by: psmccallum on Oct 3, 2005 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having interviewed 9 of the Fortune magazine's "Top 50 Women in Business" about 5 years ago, the following data may also offer some additional fodor:

1. all but one was currently married;
2. all but one had either children of their own or step-children;
3. most were between 45 and 55 years of age;
4. all but one remained in business but all were actively involved in business pursuits;
5. unlike some of the elite white women referred to in the story, these women used their access to money to purchase services that allowed them to remain actively involved in their work;
6. all of the women rated their life and work satisfaction highly, and although lamenting certain aspects of the work enviroment that they felt were sometimes discriminatory, they were not interested in the full-time mother role;
7. despite their continued interest in work, all were involved to some degree in the lives of their children and not surprisingly all felt they were doing well with raising their children.

Bottom line--these women took great pride in their ability to balance work and family. All could have afforded to get out of the world of work (either based on thier own finances or in combination with those of a high earning husband in nearly all cases), only one chose to do so. When collected 5 years ago this evidence refutes the idea that women were opting for lives as full-time mothers. The idea that any one choice for these women characterizes them as a group is an inaccurate representation of the breadth of options and opinions of high income married women with children. Perhaps we should all be mindful of sampling bias/error (hence my failure to formally publish this data from only 9 participants).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: philame on Oct 7, 2005 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this information

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for continuing the conversation
Posted by: Tailor on Oct 7, 2005 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you all for posting on this issue.
I couldn't agree more with the critique above. To compliment: the double shift is a systemic problem and we must provide comprehensive policy solutions to address it. We cannot take this on company by company, as the private sector has been out of sync with working families' needs for far too long.
Along with flexibility is the need for paid leave - of all sorts. Women and men alike need paid time off from work to attend to their needs and the needs of their loved ones - otherwise, they often cannot realistically meet competing demands of paid work and care. Yet, many of us don't have enough, if any, paid time off.
There are plenty of innovative models that spread this cost to taxpayers, employers, employees, etc. Take California, for example. It's vital that we include paid leave in our discussions about work and family. We must create opportunities for low-wage workers to realistically balance work and family obligations and provide working families the financial stability to allow men to take time off as well.
Keep up the good work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I choose to greet my child at 1:30pm each day because I have no other choice
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 7, 2005 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the place to tell my story. I chose to marry while in junior college. I chose to get pregnant while in junior college. I thought I could graduate while pregnant. I was not counting on severe morning sickness. I had to drop out. I finally graduated from junior college last year after 10 longer years of coming and going. Now I am ending my marriage. And I am choosing to put my career and my education on hold for the sake of my daughter especially because we are going through a divorce and she really needs me.
I get judged left and right. I do not care. I take the blame for choosing the wrong husband. Of course I will apply for jobs but I can only work 20 hours a week. I have applied for scholarships for child care and in 3 days I can apply for scholarships for child care through a local education fund as I have been here a year.
But I am exhausted. My husband works at a job I found for him with no benefits. He has never had benefits. I quit my job as a child care provider for a fitness center last year to spend the last summer with my daughter before she went to elementary school.
I am an early childhood educator by profession and I choose to put my daughter's early childhood first. It hurts me to constantly read articles on Alternet about Harvard and Yale. I know I could apply there. Soviet thinks I could lecture there. But the fact of the matter is I am a mother and my child comes first no matter what the cost is to me. I will suffer. Not her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bernadine Jennings;Editor in Chief; Attitude: The Dancers' Magazine
Posted by: nut's daughter on Oct 8, 2005 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women as viable members of America are constantly marginalized by the class actions and decisions of patriarchy and a small percentage of ‘white elite females’. This extremely privileged population is constantly portrayed as representing the lifestyles and goals of the broad spectrum of adult females in America. Throughout American history, well to do Caucasian females have shaped for better or worse the mandates of voting rights, various issues concerning reproduction rights, job parity, etc. Strides were made overtime, but only in tiny increments that did not alter the status quo.

Today, when we truly assess the progress report, everyone can see that equal pay, actual living wages, adequate childcare and eldercare, flexible workplaces & scheduling, removal of glass ceilings (without class action suits), diversity, mentoring and leadership training of women lags very far behind those with the option to live in a Father Knows Best World of a male only ‘breadwinner’.

Truly all breadwinners and homemakers have experienced and/or witnessed outsourcing jobs abroad and numerous laid off workers here in America. This economic reality makes such articles like Ms. Louise Story’s Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path To Motherhood are a marketing myth and worse, a NEME to contaminate diverse women in the workforce into comparing their reality and class status with the monolithic leisure and life/balance ratios of wealthy Americans.

It would be quite a sleuth of hand and social control, if, energy and focus is diverted from the massive task and opportunity at hand for America’s women and men to actually reconstruct our society, workforce, education practices, foreign policies, domestic infrastructures, energy use and priorities to living our lives as though the God in all life mattered. Women are stakeholders in such matters and will offer leadership wherever they happen to be engaged.


Bernadine Jennings; Editor in Chief
Attitude: The Dancers’ Magazine
www.geocities.com/danceattitude

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When class is hereditary -- birth, education, marriage, motherhood again determine "status"
Posted by: janvdb on Oct 9, 2005 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The girls interviewed for the article in question were chosen by and are the products of our "elite" universities, which reward the nation which gives up millions in taxes not paid (due to the tax-exempt status of these so-called "private" schools) by running admissions programs which result in a student body whose parents' average income is $150,000 (Harvard).

These privileged girls live in a different world, a world where men make enough money to keep an ex-wife and kids in a nice home and car and clothes and is reasonably likely to do that.

These girls' choices are irrelevant to 80% of women and they are unable to understand, inspire, lead or talk for other women. They are caught up inside their own little class-bound world; we live and WORK in ours.

We want to pretend that these girls are "elite" through merit, when we know that our educational system is grossly unfair and money-driven.

The most mediocre of the rich do better than the best of the poor, in our "locally controlled" educational system.

Does simply being indulged, over-privileged, well-mothered, tutored, pampered, promoted, protected and responding to excellent schools, ballet classes, and the receipt of the benefit of huge dollops of tax-exempted university endowment income by openly considering oneself "upper class," compliantly marrying another of the "upper class" and obediently devoting oneself to the propogation of even more of one's own "upper class" make one "elite?"

Or should one not be expected to make something of oneself in the real world, to compete with others in professional adult life (the part of life that starts after Daddy's money stops buying everything) and get somewhere as an independent individual before one becomes "elite?"

This depends on whether the USA is a meritocracy, where one's own achievements determine one's status, or whether the USA has become another caste society, where inherited wealth and passing through doors opened by one's parents' assets and status permanently determine one's class before one reaches adulthood.

continued below . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When class is hereditary, continued
Posted by: janvdb on Oct 9, 2005 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the attitudes of these self-absorbed, ambitionless, money-marrying, procreation-oriented rich girls are being presented as "elite" when they have accomplished absolutely nothing other than being born to, educated by, marrying into and devoting themselves to the reproduction of their own class, is just the latest sign that America is breaking up into inherited castes where birth and upbringing (and marriage to birth and upbringing) determine all -- and we don't want to admit it yet.

The NYTimes contributes to the nonsense by implying that what these upper-class girls want has any connection with what women in general want.

Only in a caste society still masquerading as "free" and "open" would anyone be presenting these self-obsessed daughters of privilege and their (lack of) plans as an indication of "want women want."

Surely, what they (don't) plan to do with themselves is all about conditions among our new hereditary upper caste and is irrelevant to what the rest of the female population will have to do with themselves all their lives -- namely, WORK.

Women who achieve success in the professional world despite lack of "elite" educations or privileged birth while openly pushing for better conditions for all women -- almost all of whom will have to "balance family and WORK" -- are the REAL "elite women," not these lazy, class-privileged, class-replicating, marriage-oriented, conventional, comfort-loving, boring, gutless brats.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TheIdealist
Posted by: theidealist on Oct 9, 2005 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am slightly depressed...after 25 years of being a part of this debate...(I am an Ivy League graduate and single mother of three who has struggled, like all of us, to balance career and kids)...that we are still stuck in a silly, whining debate about "what women want" rather than going out to get what we all know we really want. That is, a decent opportunity to participate in this society without being penalized for raising our children and being mothers. Yes, in America woman are punished for having families by lower earnings, reduced job opportunities (ie. a lifetime of frustrating underemployment) poverty after divorce, and lower Social Security than men.
I just spent ten years living in France. There, no one even questions the social policies that give women with children under the age of three the right to a four day work week and the right to return to their five day a week job when their child-rearing years are over. Not only that, all women have paid maternity leave for many months, and access to safe, affordable child care that is subsidized by the government. Each neighborhood has a "creche" or day care center, and in many, parents can observe their children via web cam while they are at work.
We kid ourselves in the US that we have "family values" when our social policies are the most unfriendly to families of any advanced western industrialized country. Women here need to get a grip, be specific about what we want, and fight for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NYT Op-Ed spoke to me
Posted by: clacy@together.net on Oct 9, 2005 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a man who tries to do the right thing and who promotes a feminist ideal, the NYT op-ed by Nicholas Kulish also spoke to me. It reflects my own experience and those of several of my friends.

We bought the feminist argument as a matter of fairness and as something likely to improve our own lifestyles. We married exceptional women with great prospects and hoped we'd be able to share the responsibilities and pressures of raising and supporting a family. But providing financial support for the family is still required work for men and optional for the women in our lives.

I am both a stay at home Dad and the breadwinner while my wife pursues her own bliss in worthwhile but low income work. She is a well educated person with an MBA from an IVY league school and yet she feels no responsibility for sharing the financial burden.

There is no language for men to ask for help in supporting the family. We sit helpless when we are attacked for not helping in the home. But suggest our partners pull up their socks and make breadwinning a priority and we are skewered for our lack of support.

My wife and I are people of priviledge, just the class of people Kulish was speaking about. His point is relevant. Unless we are met partway and new opportunities for women also bring responsibility - we risk a backlash.

My recent rebellion is to leave dishes in the sink after a hard day of making money. Someday I might even talk to some other men about this.

Chuck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I completely agree - so how do we get programs like the French?
Posted by: janvdb on Oct 9, 2005 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I think this will happen for American women only when they do what European and Japanese women have done -- stop having children unless conditions are adequate.

Population is set to shrink in all these countries -- unless the government comes through with programs to meet women's high standards for their children's treatment.

So, the governments are coming through. France and Scandanavia have been particularly concerned, then generous and have seen their birth rates recover from extreme lows of 15 years ago. Southern Europe, Japan, Germany and the former Soviet Bloc have taken moves in that direction but so far have not seen much reaction in terms of rising birth rates. The conversation is ongoing.

The national conversation in France is all about how to positively induce women, using programs and support systems, to have more children.

Japan is still caught in a vicious onslaught of guilt-tripping and blaming women, but the women have simply ignored it and refused to birth under current conditions. So, the government has recently come around to offering incentives and corporations are beginning to act.

A third of German women over 40 are childless. The population of Italy is expected to shrink by a third over the next 50 years. Spanish and Japanese women have around 1.2 children each and the governments there are panicking about the prospects. The same pattern holds in Singapore. China will be next and even southern (non-Muslim) India is seeing below-replacement birth rates.

All these societies are moving to emulate the policies of the Scandanavians and French, expecting to get the results they have -- slightly higher, yet still stable, rates of birth of children well cared for and equitably educated.

And where is America in this conversation? Where are we with regard to the programs sweeping the developed world? HA!

We are in with the UNDEVELOPED world. We are in there with Mexico and Brazil -- our women are simply having children regardless of conditions, regardless of inadequate support, regardless of neglect, inequity and dismal prospects for many of these children. We just keep dumping them out: fatherless, unsupported, poorly educated. And, our elites are just looking out for themselves -- my husband makes enough to keep me comfortable, what's wrong with yours?

continued below . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do we get programs like the French, continued
Posted by: janvdb on Oct 9, 2005 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need higher standards for what we will accept as a decent situation into which we will birth a child. We need to demand more and we need to refuse to provide mothering services if we don't get it.

Our "elites" need to think about something besides competing with other women for the few well-paid men out there. How about some joint action with ALL women?

Our women need to refuse to be mothers unless our children can have adequate support, security, and provision for the basics, regardless of marriage/divorce/abandonment/our rejection of a mate/his rejection of us.

Our government wants to maintain a world where it is "women's work" to keep the father happy, to keep the resources coming to her offspring.

We need to create a world where, unless provision for our children is secure and free of coercion, we refuse to birth.

Unless our children are wanted, respected, anticipated and appreciated -- by the entire society and the government, as reflected in the educational and legal systems we live inside -- we all just decide to be happy childless.

Like women in the rest of the civilized world.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

another, a new Backlash
Posted by: Ethel on Oct 11, 2005 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you remember the beginning of Susan Faludi's Backlash? As I recall, journalists had taken an unpublished study by Yale out of context and out of everything. I reminded myself:
>Harvard-Yale study on women's marriage patterns, word of which hit the front pages, network news programs, and talk shows of America like a bombshell in 1986. The thrust of the study was that women who failed to marry young could basically kiss off their chance for marrying at all: the so-called "man shortage" was allegedly so severe that, as Newsweek so memorably put it, by the age of forty an unmarried woman was more likely to be killed by a terrorist than to find her way to the altar.

The numbers provided by the study, which was both unpublished and unfinished, were chilling indeed. The only problem was that they weren't true">

Those of us who know about and read Alternet are not the main ones who need to know about this kind of erroneous and terribly harmful media coverage. It has to be in the Times, the Washington Post, etc.

But thank you National Council for Research on Women and AlterNet for publishing the truth.

Sheila Malovany-Chevallier

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]