I just finished that article about young women predicting their career/family plans, and I wasn't sure how to put into words what made me uncomfortable, until I got to this quote:
"'What does concern me,' said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, 'is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles.'"
I think they can imagine it, but don't see it as doable. This is reasonable, but still sad, in the same way it's sad that I gave up on paleontology, orchestra conducting, and physics, because I didn't see a way to make it in those fields. My other thoughts:
Are we giving men enough opportunity to stay home with the kids? Could we do better on this, both by making it possible in more jobs, and by making it more appealing as a choice? I must admit, I already think the idea of a man staying home at least part-time to care for kids while his wife works full time is a very sexy idea, but maybe I wouldn't if I didn't also see it as unusual. I don't want to make men do what I refuse to do, but maybe
While I don't have the same wants as the women quoted in that article, I don't think Yale women of a generation ago felt they could say these things. Is that a good thing that today's Yale women feel they can? Perhaps. Are they being realistic? Quite likely. Is it realism in the face of our culture refusing to give them better options? And is it that they don't want to stay in the workforce because the workforce penalizes them for jumping out for a while and they just don't want to set their hopes on a great career? Oh, I'd put money on that being part of it.
Staying home is a great idea. But we have long failed at helping women to feel connected and engaged while staying at home, and we don't do enough to make staying at work doable. (I say this despite being in a place where women AND men are finding ways to make it work, and getting better than average support for it.) We can do better about not penalizing people for jumping out of the workforce to have kids or care for a parent or all manner of other stuff, and I think it be better for us to have more options.
The Economist had articles in its July 23-29 issue this year about how it might well help corporations to have more women stay in the system, and maybe if we become more caregiver friendly we'll have a happier healthier workforce. I like that idea; no idea how to _accomplish_ it, but I like it.
no subject
"'What does concern me,' said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, 'is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles.'"
I think they can imagine it, but don't see it as doable. This is reasonable, but still sad, in the same way it's sad that I gave up on paleontology, orchestra conducting, and physics, because I didn't see a way to make it in those fields. My other thoughts:
Are we giving men enough opportunity to stay home with the kids? Could we do better on this, both by making it possible in more jobs, and by making it more appealing as a choice? I must admit, I already think the idea of a man staying home at least part-time to care for kids while his wife works full time is a very sexy idea, but maybe I wouldn't if I didn't also see it as unusual. I don't want to make men do what I refuse to do, but maybe
While I don't have the same wants as the women quoted in that article, I don't think Yale women of a generation ago felt they could say these things. Is that a good thing that today's Yale women feel they can? Perhaps. Are they being realistic? Quite likely. Is it realism in the face of our culture refusing to give them better options? And is it that they don't want to stay in the workforce because the workforce penalizes them for jumping out for a while and they just don't want to set their hopes on a great career? Oh, I'd put money on that being part of it.
Staying home is a great idea. But we have long failed at helping women to feel connected and engaged while staying at home, and we don't do enough to make staying at work doable. (I say this despite being in a place where women AND men are finding ways to make it work, and getting better than average support for it.) We can do better about not penalizing people for jumping out of the workforce to have kids or care for a parent or all manner of other stuff, and I think it be better for us to have more options.
The Economist had articles in its July 23-29 issue this year about how it might well help corporations to have more women stay in the system, and maybe if we become more caregiver friendly we'll have a happier healthier workforce. I like that idea; no idea how to _accomplish_ it, but I like it.