Yale women in NYT
Lindsay Bliss
The link above is to an article that appeared in the New York Times
yesterday. The article focused on women at elite universities,
primarily Yale, who intend to stop working when they have children to
become stay-at-home moms. I found the quotes from University officials
and professors to be particularly interesting reflections on who the
feminists (both male and female) of the previous generation have
expected the next generation of young women to behave. I would be
intrigued to hear what other undergraduates would have to say about
this bias and their impressions of this issues on campus, beyond what
the few quoted individuals had to say.
jessic...@yale.edu
disappointed that the author had spun the article such that her
sentiment was not accurately represented. Nevertheless, it is important
to note that the author of the article had only contacted a skewed
population of which 3 out of every 5 students had a mother who did not
work full-time. Those children had different model of how a family
could properly function. There is a common misconception throughout the
article that children raised by two working parents are somehow not as
good as children raised by the 1950s standard. I was especially taken
aback by this statement by Ms. Abugo: "I've seen the difference between
kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn't, and
it's kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it." The claim
that I, as a child raised by two working parents, am somehow 'messed
up' is misguided. When I needed help from my parents, they were
available. No, I did not get the nighlty homework help - partially
because I didn't need it, but also because my parents simply did not
have the time - but that taught me a kind of self-reliance that I have
found especially valuable. It has trained me to ask questions or
assistance when necessary, but to see the powers I hold.
Furthermore, the piece claims that a majority of women at 'elite
schools' assume that they'll be economically able to not work (e.g.
through a wealthy husband). I think (and definitely hope) most women at
Yale are not basing love and marriage upon that standard. When the cost
of raising children is increasing at an alarming rate, how can one
presume that there would be enough money to rear (let's say) two kids
with a 'comfortable' lifestyle for 22 years. That's including 8 years
of higher education that is likely to cost nearly half a million
dollars by the time our generation has college-age children.
Lastly, I would like to point out that many of my friends are unsure
what they want to major in, let alone whether they'll have children,
when, and how they will be raised.
Now, in regard to the reflections from University officials, it is
interesting to note the backlash in the late 80s until now to the
feminist movement. The feminist movement, and anti-stay at home mom
outlook, seem to be inextricably intertwined. Not to mention, most
feminists are portrayed as irresponsible, bra-burning crazies. The
feminist ideals of equal pay also seem ridiculous. All these factors
that color feminists themselves, have also gravely affected their
goals. Hence, it's not very surprising that there is this sentiment at
Yale.
~Jess Jiang
P.S. I thought it was a funny tidbit that Wellesley (the one that's
all-girls, I always it confuse it with the other W starting one) had an
annual hoop race in which the winner was proclaimed the first woman to
get married (in the 50s), the first to become a CEO (in the 70s/80s),
and the first to become successful in anyway she saw fit (90s to
current).
ce...@yale.edu
The above link is an editorial follow up to the article discussed
above. The author, Nicholas Kulish, is concerned that the Yale women
who were mentioned in the article have yet to recognize that the
current economic situation ( wages, cost of child raising etc) are such
that families need two people winning bread in order to live
comfortably. He speculates that these Yale women may have entered
college in order to find husbands.
i don't know about you, but if we're all husband hunting there
should be a LOT more dating and hooking up. Mr. Kulish objects to
women avoiding the workforce because he worries it will force men into
a previous standard of breadwinning that is now impossible to live up
to. Bad as it is to return men to the 1950's isn't it about time for
him to notice that women HAVEN'T completely left yet??? Women entering
the workforce are still paid a fraction to the dollar of men's salaries
(some of this is admittedly due to different job choices, but that also
begs the question, why are these choices so geender correlated? is
that 'choice' partly a product of subtle sexual discrimination or
stereotypes?). In entering the workforce they often are forced to
adopt (as one linguistic anthropologist terms it) men's language, their
standards for conduct and are still shut out of the gendered camraderie
of boardrooms and old boys networks. Mr. Kulish has likely seen the
feminist movement in full force, has he been sleeping through the
post-feminist reactionary period? Does he know that there are women
who think feminist is a dirty, extremist or dangerous label?
Instead of accusing women of shirking their responsibility as
breadwinners Mr. Kulish should consider what barriers are making
professional life so unappealing to women. I'll give him a hint, it's
not all about the babies.
elizabeth.a...@yale.edu
the workforce when they have kids and another quarter thinking of
reducing their workload? Given sorry state of family leave benefits
and flexible work hours at many American companies, I am surprised that
half of Yale women surveyed are consider the 12 weeks of unpaid leave
allotted by federal law adequate. Looking at the years after birth,
the decision to stay in the labor market would be much easier to make
if more family-friendly policies, like mandatory employer-subsidized
child care, were in place.
As Prof. Wexler pointed out in the original article, "[Women] are still
thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it. Women have
been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement
with no social changes to support it."
I agree with Nicholas Kulish's statement that at this point, economics
and not values are behind most women's decisions (though I suspect that
Yale women are more likely than women at large to have the luxury to
make labor market decisions based on values rather than economic
necessity). However, to do a little sniping at his article, large
costs like health plans and pre-natal care are often amenities of the
jobs Yalies aspire to, and having either spouse employed can cover the
whole family; at least those costs are not forcing Yalies into
two-earner families.
Also, the two-point fall in mothers' labor force participation since
2000 is not a "trend" predictive of modern women's values; instead, it
reflects the poor economy and misleading semantic divide between labor
market nonparticipation and unemployment. In all likelihood, the
recession and jobless recovery make good jobs scarce and other jobs
less remunerative. Because mothers have other duties to juggle, they
often have a higher reservation wage to induce them into the workforce.
In the poor economy of the last five years, it's not surprising that
there is less incentive to nominally stay in the work force by
fruitlessly searching for an adequate job.
In my own decisions, I am worried about the cost of graduate education
and the financial obligations that may impose to seek a corporate job
and continue in the labor force regardless of family priorities. This
issue resonates strongly with everyone I have talked about it with, and
there do not seem to be easy answers.
~Betsy