I was recently talking with a young professor. She said that she could not believe the number of female students who don’t wish to have a career. These students instead plan to get married and settle down.
What’s the big deal about a career anyway? In fact, most people don’t have careers; they have jobs. Boring, stupid jobs that involve a great deal of repetitive work. Most of the profits of their labor go to the pockets of their bosses. Why work these dumb jobs and hand over most of the money to a sitter? Why work these jobs and only see your kids on the weekend?
After I graduated from college, I worked in publishing and did quite well. I’m not sure why. I think my boss had a thing for redheads. But anyway, I was sitting in my office over looking Central Park and watching people jog and stroll around on a beautiful fall day. Who were these people who had such leisurely jobs? How can I get one of those? That’s when I applied to graduate school. (Yes, you can mock me now.)
Somewhere along the line, I became very ambitious and, thus, angry when circumstances (children and academia) forced me out of the workforce. But perhaps I am better off. I had a great walk outside today breathing deeply the clean, fall air. I chased a two year old around the backyard. I arranged the day as I saw fit. I was hugged 100 times.
Does our society put too great of emphasis on work? Is it dangerous for young women to prefer home over work? Should they be concerned about divorce? Would you take a demotion and pay cut, if you could spend more time with your family?
Apt. 11d 
This isn’t an area where I’m in any place to talk, first because I’m male (and hence get to approach–and am expected to approach–the issue of working and providing for my family in a different light than women can and do), and second because I work in academia, which despite all its ever-increasing problems and confusions remains something of a “guild”, which means my job provides certain freedom which most jobs do not. But all that being said, my two cents boil down to this: what’s wrong with being a slacker? What’s wrong with getting by on one income (and a small one at that)? There are plenty of practical reasons for women (and men) to be focused on the bottom-line and being able to pay the rent…but at the same time, it’s just plain silly to think there is something inherently valuable about such a focus. A job is an instrument (and sometimes an obstacle!) to a happy life; it isn’t life itself.
LikeLike
The danger, of course, is that the young women you originally mentioned are putting all of their eggs in their future husbands’ baskets (so to speak). What happens if he decides to dump her? What happens if he gets hit by a truck? (the latter could be ameliorated by insurance and social security and the like, but still.) I think that everyone, male or female, should have the means and experience to support themselves, even if they decide to get hitched and have kids and make raising them their primary work. I also think that that ability/experience puts the young women in a stronger position when finding a husband–I think many young women want to get married that they don’t think clearly about some of the other questions raised earlier this week. (I keep thinking of Arlie Hochschild’s Second Shift.) If I can support myself, then I can choose to be with this man, or not; if I’m just kind of playing around until I snag someone, then it’s less of a real choice.
But I do agree that we should have broader notions of what place “work” (in the sense of work for pay) has in our lives. To the detriment of my paycheck, I’ve discovered that I really prefer to be working in an arena that contributes something positive, that isn’t selling widgets to the gadget company. But I can live with that, quite happily.
LikeLike
The day I stopped equating my self with my paid employment I became a much happier person.
LikeLike
This sort of piggybacks on Russell’s comment, but for me, part of the issue is the differing gender expectations. I really despise how, in our society, these concerns are gendered. I *don’t care* if someone does not want a “career.” I *do* care if men are expected to have a career and women are not.
I’m not appalled by the concept of not wanting a career. I’m appalled that it’s more often/almost always women who feel, or say they feel, that way.
LikeLike
I think the problem pulls both ways. My wife was one of those “not want a career” people, and she felt EXTREMELY guilty about it, because as a feminist she felt like she was letting down her gender by not wanting to work and being “dependent” on her husband.
Then, when I was laid off and took a lower paying job, forcing my wife back to work part-time, she felt EXTREMELY guilty about leaving the kids for 20+ hours per week.
As I saw, the problem wasn’t “society” pushing her into the housewife role, but rather society pusing her (very strongly) in both direction by the same amount — the result is probably the same as there being no societal demands at all, except that it causes more stress to the woman.
Meanwhile, I do not rule out a biological difference that leads women to show a preference for child-rearing over a career. I do not mean that to imply that women should not be given full work opportunities when they so elect — all women being different, of course. I merely mean that I would not be at all surprised — let along “appalled” — that the women are statistically overwhelmingly the ones making the choice to not have a career.
LikeLike
I agree with David S that equating oneself with one’s job is not good for one’ mental health. But I do think we all need work in the sense of vocation, a sense that how we spend our time is valuable and makes both us and the world better (ah, the idealism!). So I don’t object to women “not working” if it means they are fulfilling their vocation of raising children, throwing pots, or typing onto computer screens all day–but I want men to have that same option. And I want women NOT to feel guilty if they find that their vocation is not raising children, or not spending 24/7 with them, and that it instead involves other kinds of engagement with the world.
LikeLike
I could have written this post both ways. I really do see both sides to this argument.
Work as a means as insurance against divorce or the car accident. Absolutely. I do think most women do and should have a resume to protect against those disasters.
Work can be very fulfilling. Some prefer it over work at home and they should not be punished for that preference. Just as those who work at home should not be scorned or be littled for that preference.
I never got to biological preferences in this conference. Not quite sure how I write that post. But it would make for a good debate. Hmmmm. Thinking…
LikeLike
Russell and others are right about the pitfalls, and Ann Crittenden has covered the ground of how Social Security and divorce law can really screw over whoever in the couple decides to do mostly non-wage earning caregiving rather than wage-earning.
At the same time as we work toward reforming the bad situation that Crittenden and others describe (i.e., change social security to credit caregiving years somehow, and changing divorce and alimony law), it is important to point out that society and social norms could also change to make it more acceptable for a MAN to make the “no work” choice … meaning the stay home and do the work of supporting the needs of the family and the kids.
LikeLike
A college degree and job experience, those are some of the few things that no one will ever be able to take away from you. So getting them is necessary in order to be in control of your life. It is so when you contemplate divorce and an alternative to your current situation you do not dismiss it because you realize that you would have no way of taking care of yourself (not to mention others around you). Women end up in very difficult situations (abusive relationships, etc.) because they do not have the necessary credentials and experience to sustain their life. That’s why women should get degrees, learn skills and have a job. (This goes for men as well, but that’s more the norm.)
LikeLike
“[I]t is important to point out that society and social norms could also change to make it more acceptable for a MAN to make the “no work” choice … meaning the stay home and do the work of supporting the needs of the family and the kids.”
This runs into Laura’s biology question, of course, but in general I couldn’t agree with Hilary more. It’s been fascinating–and a great learning experience to me–to follow the lives of a couple of male friends of mine who have become the primary caregivers and homemakers in their families, while their wives take on the primary breadwinning role. (One is a househusband in Connecticut; he takes care of the four kids while his wife climbs the ladder at PriceWaterhouseCoopers; the other is a part-time instructor at the same university where his wife is a full-time professor.)
LikeLike
Of course it’s important that women and men who don’t work have the means of supporting themselves should their income no longer be available. But there’s an arrogance in assuming that being prepared for a career and being able to get a job are the same things.
My mother was a SAHM until my parents divorced in the early 80s, and she went into the workplace for the first time. She had no college degree, and was able to find fulfilling work at a library where my (well-behaved) sister and I could spend our summers reading. When the need was there, my mother figured something out that worked for all of us, all without the credentials of a college degree, although she eventually did go back to school and get a degree as well.
On the other hand, I have a BA in English and when I finished undergrad, I was unable to find meaningful work. I got offers as administrative assistants, but that imagined editor/writer position never really materialized. Eventually I went back to school. In Art History. Which will supposedly prepare me for academia or museum work. Which is, as we’ve already established, extraordinarily competitive. Go figure.
Now that a bachelor’s degree is the minimum expected level of education in the work world, an education has turned into job training. If you don’t have that job training, you can’t get meaningful work. Even if you do have a BA — especially in a traditionally academic subject like English — you might not be able to get meaningful work. So basically, people who choose to stay home are being encouraged into a long and expensive and unpromising stint at “job training” on the possibility that their future income source might disappear.
My many-pronged point: 1) higher education used to be simply for the purpose of becoming a well-rounded person, for education and not job training 2) professionalization is partly to blame: my mom’s library job, if she were to apply today, would require a MA in Library Science; she was an excellent and highly knowledgeable librarian who learned on the job 3) too many people are buying into the myth that higher education will guarantee that highly coveted “career” that satisfies in the way a “job” doesn’t seem to 4) life is unpredictable: even a well-payed and highly trained doctor can lose her eyesight and be forced to retire from work she loves.
LikeLike
I would have been a career housewife if I could have gotten it–but I couldn’t, and neither can most women. The real issue isn’t whether women should work outside the home or not but what kinds of work women can get–the issue is sex segregation in the labor market.
i didn’t want to be a housewife because I wanted to nurture–I wanted to be a housewife because I didn’t want to work and because, when I got out of school, the jobs available to women were horrid. I’m a tenured full professor in a very nice working situation now but I would still rather not work.
I’m very skeptical of all the stories about women who, with regret, leave the labor force because they want to nurture their children. Women can get away with running that line but is it true? When I was growing up it was commonplace that you had children so that you could get off of work.
LikeLike
To address one of your last questions: Yes, I took a paycut to spend more time with my family, specifically my children. I have chosen to work 80% time, which translates into approximately $17K less in my annual income. And I’m the only person in our family with a stable job; my husband’s consulting work has brought in as little as $4K a year, though in other years as much as I make. Still, even though I literally crave financial security, I wouldn’t trade in my 8 hours of ‘freedom’ each week for anything. They allow me to pick up my daughter from school twice a week and spend time in her class one morning a week. They also allow me to keep my son out of daycare for a few hours now and then, so that we can have some special time, just the two of us. More than worth the cost. (Although, ask me again during one of those husband-only-making-$4K years…)
LikeLike
my wife belongs to Mothers and More, I think their idea of ‘sequencing’ is an excellent one. However it probably will never get off the ground in America, where risk is privatized and profits are corporatized..
I did take a pay cut and demotion to spend more time with my family. Basically I now have a 40-hour week and not much travel: if I wanted to get ahead, I’d need to be working 50+ hours a week and travelling most weeks. It’s not worth it – though I may well have a different opinion after my job has been outsourced to India.
Some people are lucky/wise enough to have jobs that aren’t work. For the rest of us, we have to sell some fraction of our lives. I wouldn’t work for money if I didn’t have to.
LikeLike