Celebrating One Hundred Years of Failure to Reproduce on Demand [NYT editorial: Way off for women]

The NYT ^ | April 14, 2002 | Gail Collins

[summer]

I think Gail Collins is so off the mark here.

Many of my own single, attractive, female friends -- successful in careers, but unmarried and childless, have been reading Sylvia Hewlett's new book, "Creating a Life." To these women, the findings in her book confirm what they silently suspected: There are MANY educated, successful, single, unmarried, aging and childless women in this country -- and, something is wrong with this picture.

None of them expected it would take as long as it did to financially support themselves, or to get where they did, and to have to do it alone -- without a "helpmate" as Sen. Nelson recently labeled Tipper, the spouse of Al Gore.

Gail Collins seems to be very eager to brush aside any questions of my female friends, yet this debate is now taking center stage as a result of Hewlett's book. And, most of my close friends are: liberal or independent / swing voters. Without families of their own and children, many do feel they have missed a boat they did not plan on missing.

And, while I do not intend to sound an alarm, Gail Collins' claim that "race suicide" is a joke is also off the mark, as it is a cold, hard fact that whites in this country are now reproducing at the lowest rate when compared to every other race -- and that fact is known to most teachers, who are constantly told to expect an increase in (1) Hispanic students (as Hispanics are reproducing at the higest rates) and (2) black students. Whites are far behind in reproduction rates.

Gail Collins' editorial here leaves me wondering why she and others refuse to believe that some women DID intend to have children and families. I can't help but wonder if she is a big supporter of the so-called 'Peter Pan' theory for men, as such men do not see the need to marry, and intend to remain at a teenage mentality forever in terms of responsibility. To me, Gail Collins tries hard to make it sound like this is just fine: Peter Pan men, and childress, intelligent women. But, I disagree with her.

[summer]

FYI.

[summer]

Correction re: the end of the editorial --

22nd cent = 22nd century.

[summer]

childress, = childless,

[summer]

FYI.

[Windsong]

Hmmm...I once heard a physiologist say that sex and death are related more than they ever suspected. Is the reverse true? So someone who is immortal cannot reproduce? Now I know where the Highlander writers got their ideas from :P

On a more serious note, I wonder if biological immortality is forever unreachable...

[summer]

BTW, here's some reviews of the subject book, from amazon:

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

"Between a third and a half of all high-achieving women in America do not have children" and "the vast majority yearn" for them, says Hewlett, founder of the National Parenting Association. In this study of baby lust, Hewlett portrays the anguished hand-wringing by middle-aged women who were career-obsessed throughout their 20s and 30s, only to wake up single at 40, biological clocks all petered out. Infertility treatment is not a solution, she says; it's expensive, dangerous to women's health and unlikely to produce a pregnancy, much less a live, healthy baby. Moms and potential moms from playwright Wendy Wasserstein to a 46-year-old single woman who traveled to China to adopt illustrate Hewlett's thesis that "some of the most heartfelt struggles of the breakthrough generation have centered on the attempt to snatch a child from the jaws of menopause. A few succeed; most do not." Hewlett attests that "if high-altitude careers inevitably exact a price, it's profoundly unfair that the highest prices... are paid by women." "Self-indulgent" women might try to have a child and a career by hiring a nanny, but for Hewlett, it's more "courageous" for a woman to forgo childbearing if a career is her real goal. Hewlett's advice to young women is strangely retro: get married you'll be happier and healthier. She counsels them to give "urgent priority" to finding a marriage partner fast, "have your first baby before 35" and look for work at a family-friendly corporation. Though ardently argued, her case is unconvincing.

From Booklist

Founder of the National Parenting Association, Hewlett reports on new data showing nearly half of the most successful women in corporate America are childless, mostly contrary to their heartfelt desires. Hewlett begins with interviews of high-powered women--lawyers, journalists, scholars, doctors, businesswomen--who wanted children but ran out of time to begin their families. She reviews recent data on career women and their odds of marrying and raising a family, noting that despite promising...

See all editorial reviews...

[READER] Reviews
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers!

-----------------

The importance of facts, April 9, 2002 Reviewer: Teresa Fletcher from Atlanta, Georgia

I think this book stresses the importance of facts and becoming educated on making life decisions. Having children and having a career are both choices and with choices in life there are always consequences. However, what Hewlett points out is that women have been given false information in terms of how long they can wait to have children. Having fertility information at 25 (as opposed to 45 when it's too late) can be helpful when attempting to plan for both career and family and I think her message is just that simple. I agree with her suggestion to look at where you want to be at 45 and plan backwards, however, there is one tiny stipulation. Just because you have a plan, life is full of surprises that cannot be forecast, foreseen, or prevented and plans have to remain flexible enough to change. For example, you can plan to get married at 27, but you may not meet your partner until you are 32. I think the key is understanding the consequences and potential consequences of making these decisions. I would love to say that in a perfect world, you can have a great career and a great family. However, when maintaining a balance, both areas may not get full attention all the time. Life is a juggling act. You may only be 80% productive on your job and 80% productive on childrearing. But that is much better than neglecting one or the other because both are important.

---------------------- Give me a break, April 10, 2002

Reviewer: A reader

I watched Hewlett on the talk shows. She told interviewers that she started out just wanted to write a book about Successful Women. Give me a break - just take a look at her other books and you will see she is on a crusade to send women back to the home.

Everyone has choices and then they have to live with them. She talks about the successful men having children but she doesn't talk about their relationship with their children. She says that senior women don't have rich family lives, well plenty of senior men don't have rich family lives. I don't care if a man can father a child at age 60 it still doesn't make it a good idea!

My understanding is she was very "selective" about who she interviewed to get the results she wanted to write this book!

This woman is crazy pushing herself to have another child at age 51 when she had 4!

Here is a direct quote from Hewlett - she hopes ''young women will absorb this information and put it to good use.'' Focusing on a career ''with a laser beam and postponing all else works for men, but not for women.''

Things are different than they were when Hewlett was in her early 30s. Many men are deciding to stay home these days.

Don't let this book scare you - make your own choices!

---------------------

Ms. Hewlett misses the mark big time, April 10, 2002 Reviewer: A reader from new york, NY

If we take Ms. Hewlett's observations to the natural conclusion in a perfect world American women would all be white trash and get knocked up at 19 regardless of their ability to succesfully provide for themselves and their children.

I have no delusions about my biological clock yes I went to grad school and did the career thing, but the real problem is finding decent,intelligent, emotionally available, finacially stable, non-commitmentphobic men. Why isnt that that the cover story of Time magazine?!

As if we dont have enough stress post 9/11 world, do single women really need to have this [nonsense] thrust in their faces?

-----------------------

What an eye-opener, April 9, 2002 Reviewer: A reader from Dallas, TX

I thought I knew what the statistcs were and the reality of having a child later in life. I'm shocked at how little I know. Many of my friends are reading this book, and are having the same reaction. It's fascinating & I hope that young women today will get the message -- don't only plan for your career if you want to be a mother. Plan for that, too. It doesn't "just happen". I can sadly attest to that.

[summer]

Notice that, in the modern liberal worldview, "a woman's right to choose" is the ONLY important right.

I'm glad you mentioned that -- because the women I am talking about, ironically, often feel: there was actually NO choice for them. Meaning: Yes, there was abortion on demand, but, no, there was no enlightment as to what might happen down the road.

[summer]

It may well be that their warnings had effect, and helped change attitudes.

That's a good point.

[SlickWillard]

There are MANY educated, successful, single, unmarried, aging and childless women in this country -- and, something is wrong with this picture. None of them expected it would take as long as it did to financially support themselves, or to get where they did, and to have to do it alone -- without a "helpmate" as Sen. Nelson recently labeled Tipper, the spouse of Al Gore.

You cannot have both a career and a family. Period. This is true of both men and women. You might object: But what if one spouse stays home and the other pursues a career? Even this doesn't work. You can't say you're a good father if every time you try to watch your son play little league [football, basketball, baseball, whatever], your beeper goes off, you get called away, and you have to arrange for another parent to drive him home. You can't say you're a good father if you don't have the time to build a tree fort with your son [and teach him how to do it], so you hire someone else to build it for you. You can't call yourself a good father if you're always on the road, week after week after week, and your only contact with your son is a phone call every other night from your hotel room. [And you sure as hell can't fulfill your marital obligations to his mother under those circumstances.] At some point, you have to decide: Successful career, or family. Our hedonistic, narcissistic culture has been promoting the former, over the latter, for about forty years now.

On the other hand, this is not an entirely new phenomenon.

[ikka]

Anecdotal evidence: my 40-something sister is licensed to practice law in the USA, Canada, and the UK. She has worked as a lawyer on underwriting IPOs, structuring financial transactions, etc.

She had my nephew a few years ago and is trying very hard to have another. She loves her boy, and quite frankly I feel that it has changed her personality for the better - the sharp brilliance of her mind is there but she is kinder and gentler now.

I think that the reason for the delay in getting married is at least partially attributable to the fact that better educated males are not necessarily nicer people.

[summer]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, and your link there! Very interesting...

[summer]

better educated males are not necessarily nicer people.

Unfortunately -- that sometimes holds true for women as well.

[summer]

Also, you did not mention if your sister is married, but, I have noticed that the nature of marriage seems to have changed in the last generation. In my parents' generation, there was a desire to (1) get married; and (2) together build a future. But, when I grew up, the message I often heard, though not from my parents, was: (1) you first need to earn as much money as you can, because you never know if you will get divorced; and, I suspect: (2) men who also got that message then seemed more reluctant to risk a fortune in marriage, even with pre-nups.

Consequently, marriage for many people now seems to be something that happens AFTER the individuals are assured of their own, singular financial security -- instead of being a journey two people take, together, seeking it.

[SlickWillard]

better educated males are not necessarily nicer people.

Unfortunately -- that sometimes holds true for women as well.

Since I was a teenager, I've thought that I would want to marry a high powered, successful career woman. The older I get, though, the more I have my doubts. From my observations, there is something badly wrong with these women [and I've dated scads of them through the years]. They seem to be driven by a visceral hatred of everything. They are, to a woman: Rude, mean, short-tempered, impatient, and venomous. They are also almost uniformly pro-abortion. A career woman won't hesitate to murder your unborn child in her womb if she thinks that's what's needed to further her career. These women also live to commit adultery with other women's husbands [although, in that regard, they're probably not all that different from the rest of their sisters].

I'm not saying I'm looking for a Stepford Wife, but I might be interested in a disillusioned career woman who's ready to move on to greener pastures. The problem is that they don't seem to get to that point until after their wombs have gone barren.

[summer]

a disillusioned career woman who's ready to move on to greener pastures.

I think you are very smart to be able to correctly identity a phase I think many women do go through...

[elk]

I would quietly tell my male college classmates that even though they may not be having much luck on the dating scene in college, their "worth" on the marriage scene would only increase as they left college, earned money, etc. They had no "clock" to deal with.

To my female college classmates, I would ask, "Can women really have it all? And what is 'all' and do you really want it, and oh, by the way, don't be so arrogant to think that you are going to beta the odds once the window of your fertility has closed."

Women have been fed and ingested a lot of bologna, about the worth of the activities women have traditionally been engaged in - I just couldn't buy into that stuff. Women need to treasure the strengths they have been given by God, and their unique ability to bear children. The truth is much better to use when deciding how to best structure one's future.

Anyhow, we are trying to have as many kids as possible before I'm 35. We may not wear designer clothes and don't drive a SUV, but I'd consider myself very, very rich.

[Mark Turbo]

Reviewer: A reader from new york, NY

If we take Ms. Hewlett's observations to the natural conclusion in a perfect world American women would all be white trash and get knocked up at 19 regardless of their ability to succesfully provide for themselves and their children.

What a nasty attitude this woman has. My mom had me when she was 16 and she is nobody's white trash. This reader clearly watches too much Jerry Springer.

I have no delusions about my biological clock yes I went to grad school and did the career thing, but the real problem is finding decent,intelligent, emotionally available, finacially stable, non-commitmentphobic men. Why isnt that that the cover story of Time magazine?!

Perhaps because it's the story behind a lot of commercials, sitcoms, Lifetime original movies, most episodes of Ally McBeal, et cetera, ad nauseam?

I hope this NYC reader never finds me.

[Loyalist]

Consequently, marriage for many people now seems to be something that happens AFTER the individuals are assured of their own, singular financial security -- instead of being a journey two people take, together, seeking it.

How true! And it's an attitude I have found myself unconcsciously adhering to. More out of worry, though, that I would not have enough evidence of financial stability to be considered a good provider.