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

April 14, 2002

EDITORIAL OBSERVER

Celebrating One Hundred Years of Failure to Reproduce on Demand

By GAIL COLLINS

A century ago, American women were experiencing a spectacular burst of energy and opportunity. For the first time, they were going to college in large numbers. For the first time, they could choose from an assortment of professional careers. The number of female doctors was higher at the beginning of the 20th century than it would be at any time until the 1980's. Most of those suddenly liberated, high-achieving women did not marry or have children. Almost instantly, the country started worrying about "race suicide."

"If Americans of the old stock lead lives of celibate selfishness . . . or if the married are afflicted by that base fear of living which . . . forbids them to have more than one or two children, disaster awaits the nation," thundered Theodore Roosevelt, father of six. G. Stanley Hall, a turn-of-the-century equivalent of a talking head, warned that "if women do not improve," men might have to undertake "a new rape of the Sabines."

It's always comforting in a time of crisis to note that we have been down this road before and are still around to worry about the state of the pavement. The author of the hour, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, is making the talk show rounds warning about "an epidemic of childlessness" among professional women, which she recounts in her book, "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children." In it, she worries that close to half of the women who get graduate degrees or pursue heavy-duty careers in business are failing to reproduce.

Ms. Hewlett is more worried about personal happiness than the protection of the gene pool. But she has definitely touched a nerve, or perhaps the entire spinal column. She argues that too many women count on being able to become pregnant in their 40's, then discover it's a long shot. Although we cannot have too many warnings about the danger of betting your happiness on the fertility industry, her hand-wringing is a little like the old greeting card in which an alarmed woman announces, "Oh darn, I forgot to have children!"

All this is weirdly resonant. Between 1890 and 1920, when the number of women entering professions like college teaching, social work and library studies was soaring, 75 percent stayed single. Three-quarters of the women who earned Ph.D.'s between 1877 and 1924 remained unmarried.

"Race suicide" — a shorthand way of saying that immigrant women were having lots of babies while Anglo-Saxons were failing to reproduce themselves — was the talk of the nation. The New York City Board of Education, already an institution with an inventive world view, claimed that it could not give female teachers the same salaries as men because it would lead to "the sacrifice of the race for the individual." (Women, the board worried, would blow the extra money on European tours and opera boxes while the poor men struggled to save enough to start their families.)

The women who were failing to marry seemed pretty sure that the problem was a shortage of men worth marrying.

As early as 1885, a young woman was explaining to Ladies' Home Journal readers that she and her friends had decided to pursue professional careers because a good job "could supply a woman with both interest and support, two roles in which husbands just now fail." Popular magazines routinely published first-person stories, with signatures like "A Spinster Who Has Learned to Say No" or "A Happy Old Maid," in which women reported that they had rejected two, three, five offers of marriage from unsatisfactory swains.

But society in 1900 was concerned that the women who appeared to be the smartest, the most energetic and the most competent were not reproducing. Society was, it turned out, wrong. Other women — less well educated but obviously equally smart and competent — were doing a fine job raising families. The spinsters, meanwhile, were doing a fine job teaching children, running settlement houses, building libraries and exposing sweatshop conditions.

A century ago, American women for the first time had the luxury of career crises, of worrying whether they wanted to choose work or home. But they did not believe that they could have both.

Having it all was not on the 1900 menu. Even presidents of universities and heads of unions retired to become homemakers once they married. Jane Addams, everybody's favorite turn-of-the-century woman, seemed philosophical about the state of affairs, perhaps because she was happily committed to a wealthy heiress, Mary Rozet Smith. Addams, at any rate, concluded that women who wanted careers and children would probably have to wait "until public opinion tolerated the dual role."

Public opinion has come around. In fact, women tend to feel guilty now for failing to acquire all the big three: husband, children and world-class career. One of Ms. Hewlett's least convincing theories is that most of the childless career women are feeling robbed. Her best evidence is that a vast majority had expected to have children when they were in college. They probably also expected to keep up with their French and stay in touch with their roommates, but life has a way of paring priorities.

Chances are many women instinctively realize that they don't have the energy to go for the trifecta, and they veer off in one direction or another. Many others manage children, a spouse and a demanding career very well indeed, deeply irritating everybody who believes that two is the appropriate quota. The secret may be a helpful husband or easygoing offspring, or just the ability to keep focused on the task at hand, even on a day when the baby sitter has decided she's moving to Tucson.

Of course, it's regrettable that having it all is easier for men. But frankly, the fact that women who choose hard-charging careers often do not have children is pretty far down on the list of American social problems. Anyway, things are bound to improve by the turn of the 22nd cent

Parents today often pressure their daughters toward "success" as rigorously as they do their sons.... These girls are told they MUST go to college, MUST get their law degrees, MUST have a successful career before they can even CONSIDER marriage and motherhood. That message is reinforced by educators, by the media, and by peer pressure. If you talk to a group of high-school girls from any middle-class suburban millieu, you will find that they all just ASSUME that a college education and professional career are their destinies

This is abosolutely true. And, Hewlett's book also makes the point that what many women told her they are now stunned to reflect back and realize just how long it took them to get anywhere in terms of livable financial income.

She also goes against all those research studies in the 60's-80's claiming single women are happier and live longer. Now, she is citing newer research saying the opposite -- it is the MARRIED women, NOT the single women, who are healthier, wealthier and living longer. I think mothers do a grave disservice to their daughters by pretending to them that being single is a better way to live -- it is certainly not easier, in terms of finances, and, now, we find out that it is not healthier.

Incidentally, I don't necessarily blame these "career women" for their sad plight. Parents today often pressure their daughters toward "success" as rigorously as they do their sons.

I don't blame them either. Unfortunately parents usually have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the world when they encourage their daughters to study hard in high school so as to get into a "good college." They are no doubt overly focused on material success, but many savvy parents understand something.

Girls tend to want to marry up, and the only way to do that largely is to go to college. Professional or skilled men generally do NOT marry the clerk at Wal-Mart or the girl who cleans houses. They might have married the girl behind the cash register at Woolworth's seventy years ago out of love, but that was then, this is now.

Unfortunately for the poor college-bound dears, they go to schools now which are 70% or so women. The colleges "where the boys are" happen to be the *hard* schools - engineering & other science & technology mostly. These guys want to marry a professional woman; many of them won't "marry down." I think this tends to explain the demise of marriage among white lower- and middle-class people. When girls are penalized in the marriage market for having both "too little" education (i.e. clerk at the retail store) and "too much" education (PhD/JD from Harvard) marriage rates are going to go down, and illegitimacy rates are going to go up among the lower-income end.

Professional or skilled men generally do NOT marry the clerk at Wal-Mart or the girl who cleans houses.

I would like to agree with you on that, but, I see way too many instances where this is exactly what happened. And, it often happens on the 2nd marriage -- comedian Robin Williams ditched his wife to marry his kids' nanny (an uneducated woman); or, it happens early in life -- the governor of FL married the first woman he ever dated (no education on her end). And, many wives of successful politicians and businessmen have no education, and met their mates while they were hostesses in restaurants or some other dippy job -- but, they married. And, got the money. And, never again had to worry about paying the rent or all the other silly things college educated women fret over. So, in my mind, those women were much smarter in many ways than college educated women who worked so hard to get essentially nowhere.

Professional or skilled men generally do NOT marry the clerk at Wal-Mart or the girl who cleans houses.

I would like to agree with you on that, but, I see way too many instances where this is exactly what happened. And, it often happens on the 2nd marriage -- comedian Robin Williams ditched his wife to marry his kids' nanny (an uneducated woman); or, it happens early in life -- the governor of FL married the first woman he ever dated (no education on her end). And, many wives of successful politicians and businessmen have no education, and met their mates while they were hostesses in restaurants or some other dippy job -- but, they married. And, got the money. And, never again had to worry about paying the rent or all the other silly things college educated women fret over. So, in my mind, those women were much smarter in many ways than college educated women who worked so hard to get essentially nowhere.

And, I should amend that, as my conclusion sounds overly negative. But, I do now look at other women's lives -- married at 19, or 22, and often, these women never had to work a day in their lives. And, I must admit: it looks a lot easier to get married than to make it on your own. I have definately concluded that. True, marriage has its own sets of problems and challenges. But, it's not the same as being single, which I do believe is much harder because financially, you are on your own all the time. Imnow think is better for a woman to get married -- ASAP -- and let your mate share at least half of the financial worries.

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

I can't say whether or not she SUPPORTS the Peter Pan theory, but there's no doubt that women have allowed men to live in that 'Neverland'. If any of these professional childless women have slept around, or had long term sexual relationships without any sort of commitment on the part of the man, they are part of the problem. In the past, men married because they knew that it was the only way they were going to be able to have a sexual relationship with their 'beloved'. Nowadays, women bed-hop as much as the guys. and in their zeal for 'no strings', they have created the problem they have.

Women have the power to change the situation, they just have to USE it!

And, I must admit: it looks a lot easier to get married than to make it on your own. I have definately concluded that. True, marriage has its own sets of problems and challenges. But, it's not the same as being single, which I do believe is much harder because financially, you are on your own all the time.

The hardest life of all is looking for someone else to take care of you. None of us knows what happened after Prince Charming carted Cinderella off into the sunset, but it could be that he died leaving her with children; or that he became ill; or that he had business reverses.
It can be easier to be single, because the only one you have to take care of is yourself. You never have to decide whether to spend your retirement money on a mate's health care or on your own retirement.

IMO, anyone who isn't able to make it on their own is a rotten spouse.

So, in my mind, those women were much smarter in many ways than college educated women who worked so hard to get essentially nowhere.

You have a good point. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that girls "should" go to college or women should "only" be professionals. There is a lot of popular wisdom about marriage & getting married out there that's mostly b.s. The key is that girls need to develop *people smarts* because that's how you tell the difference between a cad and and a prince.

Great points, ikanakattara. Thanks for your post.

And, BTW -- I just some OTHER author, on FOX, who wrote a new book called "The Price of Motherhood" and her big argument is that motherhood can be the quickest route to poverty for women. So, who knows. I was also thinking that if a woman does get married ASAP, as I suggested, then, she does have to worry about eventually getting dumped by her husband at some point -- and, being left with no job skills or education. It's a tough one. Every women who has one thing probably looks at the other women and thinks: they have it better, and vice versa. Who knows..... :)

IMO, anyone who isn't able to make it on their own is a rotten spouse.

I used to think that too, but now I am not so sure about that. Look at a woman like Tipper Gore. Do you think she would have been able to support herself? I don't know. She never held a job for a day in her life. But, she met Al, married -- and, that was it. She never had to worry about making a living. Same for millions of married women.

But for other women, who tried so hard to FIRST make it on their own, either it took too long to make it, or they never got as far as they thought they would, and whether they made it or not, now all these women wonder: Where's the husband and kids?

It's a difficult situation.

Women (and men) need to decide what kind of life-style they want. All of life is a compromise. But the worst position to be in is to be totally dependent on someone else. That person may not be able, through no fault of their own, to give you what you want or need.
Or, it may be that you made a serious mistake in choosing who to be dependent on.

It's only when you know that you can make it on your own that you can make good decisions about who to share your life with.

I think Tipper Gore would have done just fine on her own, had that been the path she chose. Remember her campaign to label record albums? She certainly showed that she had a lot of ability then. And, of course, political wives do have jobs. They have responsibilities for charities, fund-raising, hosting events, etc.

Sorry, but, no, I don't buy it. Many political wives, including Tipper, only have "jobs" because they are married to the men they married -- that's the one and only reason. A woman who actually WORKS for a living often does not have TIME to do what political wives have TIME to do: "charities, fund-raising, hosting events" etc. Because: working women actually have to show up at a JOB.

I don't mean to put Tipper down, and she has done things -- as Al's wife. But, this is one reason I always admired Laura Bush more. She did work for a living. She did live on her own. And, THEN she married GW. I can relate a lot more to Laura Bush than Tipper Gore, no matter how much the Dems try to make fun of Laura Bush. To me, Tipper is a much more distant role model for millions of women. She did it the easy way: got married, and was set financially for life.

And, maybe, Tipper did it the smart way. Because working really hard in some careers often chosen by women, like nursing and teaching -- and yet making no money -- is really not a whole lot of fun. I'm sure many teachers and nurses would much rather get dressed up and host a charity ball once in a while. That kind of "work" seems a lot less stressful.

ladies might confirm my observation that fellows who stay single so long often have "issues" about relationships with women -- they are too embittered, or too selfish, or too "whatever" to make good husbands.

As one such man -- who wanted to be married at 21 but has been unwillingly single til 38 (gettin' hitched in 2 months, amen), I have to take exception to this. Much of the "bitterness" is due to the fact of singleness, itself, and vanishes instantly upon finding a mate. The rest of it -- the stuff that's due to having one's heart savagely mistreated by "Christian" women that one tried to honorably pursue, starts to heal -- slowly -- once one is finally in a good relationship.

The REAL problem with the old maids is not a shortage of good men, but that the old maids have impossibly high expectations of men, expectations that they themselves could not meet. Real life examples of various women personally known to me:
-She wants an athletic man, yet she's overweight.
-She won't tell a man what she thinks or wants, yet she expects him to magically know (Hint: Only GOD knows what ye need, before ye ask. Don't expect a man to be God, that's idolatry)
-She says one thing, secretly means another, and expect the man to magically understand. (Hint: let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Apologies to KJV-only fanatics)
-If you ask her out one-on-one, she "doesn't believe in dating" -- yet if you try to get to know her by asking her to go out with a group of friends, she won't do that either, as it's only "dating in disguise"... (this chick ain't NEVER gonna get courted!!!)
-No man is rich enough for her, not even in Malibu.
-No man is holy enough for her, not even in seminary.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. These women turn away one great man after another, and then endlessly b*tch about how men are "commitophobes" and how they never meet a "good one"... and sometimes, they break down in the heat of emotion and fall into the arms of the first jerk that comes along.

Fortunately, my fiance was wise enough not to be like this.

A man who wants to marry ought to do so by age 33.

If you're going to stay a virgin til you're married, as the Bible commands, 33 is WAY TOO OLD. I advocate that any man who has a choice in the matter shoud get married within 5 to 7 years of puberty. The alternatives are fornication or insanity. (As a believer in God, I opted for insanity.)

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.