Posted on 04/11/2004 5:55:49 PM PDT by MegaSilver
The media are rife these days with stories of highly qualified executive-level women who blithely discard careers for the preferred occupation of full-time motherhood. The New York Times tried to launch what writer Lisa Belkin titled the "Opt-Out Revolution" last fall.
Last week, Time magazine followed with a somewhat closer-to-reality account. The gist of both articles was the best and brightest of America's women (especially young women) have had it with work. Their role model is June Cleaver, not Carly Fiorina. Domestic bliss, full-time homemaking and child-rearing trump wheeling, dealing and real world success.
This is hardly the first time some women with particular (and I would say self-centered) agendas have tried to turn back decades of advancement forged by other women. Right after passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the so-called anti-suffragists filled magazines of the day with articles claiming women didn't want the vote, would never use it and didn't have a clue as to whom to vote for, save asking their husbands how to use this newfound power. Almost a century later, eligible women vote in much greater percentages than eligible men.
I did a little checking into some of what Belkin alleged as fact in her article painting Ivy League B-schoolers as suddenly smitten mothers who could no longer tear themselves away from their children to work. The New York Times Magazine should have done some fact-checking.
The "Opt-Out Revolution" reads as Belkin's personal mea culpa for not working full-time (she describes accomplished women dropping out of the work force as a "revolution stalled.") She plays recklessly with data. For example, she writes, "Look at Harvard Business School. A survey of women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 found that only 38 percent were working full time."
I called the Harvard B-School media office. When a representative there gave her the results of the professor's survey Belkin cites, it was made clear this was not a statistically reliable sampling. I was told each of those classes of 900 graduates (in 1981, 1985 and 1991) she cited were roughly 30 percent female. That means approximately 810 were women.
She received a grand total, I was told, of 150 responses. And who would have more time to respond to such a survey than wom-en home full-time versus women crunching hours and putting in face-time at high-velocity jobs?
What is true, a Harvard B-School spokesman told me, is that many female graduates "turn down the volume" while their children are young and choose to work fewer hours (be it part-time or not at all) temporarily. But Belkin reported this phenomenon in an entirely different and, one could say, grossly distorted manner as if work was an afterthought as soon as kids came along, even for the best-educated women in the country.
The impact, unfortunately, could be real. Corporate managers may point to this alleged phenomenon and interpret it to be much more widespread than it is. "See," (you can just hear the water cooler conversations) they might say, "women never really did want to work, they want to stay home, they don't want the promotions they pretend to be working toward."
This attitude stereotypes women, who come in all shapes, sizes (some of whom want to and work hard to succeed in the career arena -- others of whom find fulfillment at home). Both choices are valid, but neither should have to pay for the choices of the other.
Men suffer, too. Not all men make partner at prestigious law firms. Not all men become high-earner CEOs and support full-time wives in affluent fashion. In fact, few do. Does Belkin's attitude mean they have failed?
I'm no feminist. I hate labels. But to me, women's advancement is about enhancing the pastiche of choice for women and men. Belkin did nothing but set that movement back.
Bonnie Erbe, TV host, writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com
Who’s really self-centered here, Comrade Bonnie? The ones who turn their back on the left-wing feminist agenda and monetary gain because they realize their responsibilities for the decisions they have made ….or the ones who turn their back on their children for money, possessions and just maybe a cause? Do you really think that throwing kids in kiddy kennels until their 12 years old is the best thing for a society?
I think feminists are the selfish ones. Again we see they are only pro-choice if we support their choices.
That's a fabulous book and the one that converted me! It was loaned to me by a Republican mom with 13 kids and convinced me to leave a major career to stay home and take care of my babies. (Dr. Laura helped also.)
I need to get my own copy to give to my daughter (and maybe my son) someday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.