Posted on 26. Oct, 2003 by Brian Reid in General
I wasn’t disappointed by the New York Times Magazine cover story by Lisa Belkin on “The Opt-Out Revolution.” That’s not entirely true. I was disappointed by the story, but there’s plenty to blog about in there. It’s a lose-win. Kind of like the World Series.
The story is not about at-home dads … it’s about high-powered women who choose to chuck their Ivy League grad degrees and their six-figure salaries to stay home. Here’s a sample line that sets the tone: “There is nothing wrong with money or power. But they come at a high price. And lately when women talk about success they use words like satisfaction, balance and sanity.” The story isn’t untrue or overblown, from what I can tell, but it manages to leave the biggest question that I have about the phenomenon unanswered: why is this being seen in women? What does gender have to do with it? Do men not want “balance and sanity”?
The nice women Beklin quotes tend to see men and women as different creatures. One goes so far as to proclaim “‘It’s all in the MRI.’“, suggesting that there’s stuff going on the brains of women that isn’t going on the brains of men. Of course, as far as I know — and I would be very interested to stand corrected — there is no such MRI study (a point Belkin seems to concede). When Belkin turns to anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy to bolster that point, Hrdy issues a stern warning: “‘… to turn that into dogma — women are caring, men are not, or men should have power, women should not, that’s dangerous and false.’” And with that, Hrdy is vanishes from the piece, which goes on to blithely trumpet that “dangerous” dogma.
The real shame is that the question of why career-track moms are fleeing the workforce so much faster than career-track dads is a very real, very important question. Maybe biology does play a role. There are social pressure, too, and family dynamics and a hundred other subtle things. Teasing them all out would have made for a bombshell of a piece. But it’s easier, I support, to leave those bits alone and just interview a bunch of fellow Princeton grads.
At the very tail end of the piece, Belkin tries to argue that this emerging domesticity is a good thing for dads, arguing that the 18 percent rise in at-home dad rates over the past decade was made possible by the movement of women out of the workforce and into the home. “Men are being freed to act like women,” she writes. That argument is not complete bunk, but it wildly overstates at-home motherhood as the reason for the at-home dad increase. (There is another stat — which I hadn’t seen before — showing that 46 percent of Ernst and Young family leaves were taken by men. That is a figure that I will look into.)
In short, the piece seemed to ram home the old-fashioned party line: women are happier at home. But I’m happy at home too. And so are the guys in my dads playground, the Ivy League grads, the ex-lawyers, the former hotshot political operatives. Is there something wrong with our MRIs? Belkin leaves me wondering.
david
27. Oct, 2003
I read about two pages of the article and left it at that. A better question to ask is why are high powered, type A types - BOTH men and women - climbing off the corporate ladder? Is there something going on? Is there a reaction against the 24/7 go-go, always be available to your customers, stay at work until the crack of dawn cranking out that proposal attitude of the 90s?
I think there is. I doubt it’s just us.
Susan Nunes
27. Oct, 2003
The article is pure garbage. Pure elitist garbage about a tiny proportion of a tiny percentage of elite women in the over-glorified male-dominated professions who can somehow afford to “drop out” of the male-dominated rat race.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of American women don’t have the option to “drop out” and live off hubby’s bloated income.
The same exact garbage was leveled at women in the 1980s and in the 1950s.
Anybody who quotes the disreputable Sylvia Hewlett as some kind of expert is automatically suspect in their motives.
Jen
27. Oct, 2003
Great blog, Rebel Dad. I’ve already weighed in on this article at my own site. Just to note, the MRI crap probably comes from “What Could He Be Thinking? How a ManÂ’s Mind Really Works” (http://www.msnbc.com/news/974331.asp), a book that attempts to explain gender differences on MRIs (at least, that’s my understanding, haven’t read it). I’m suspicious of anyone who focuses on the differences between women and men (which, when compared to our similarities, are not hugely significant) to justify disparities in our social structure. But I suppose that’s just how some people view the world — you, Rebel Dad, should be categorized as a complete freak for not following the male marching orders (and I’ll fess up, I should too for not wanting to give up my career as soon as I become a mother), instead of recognizing that there is a spectrum of differences, and women and men fall on both sides of it. But that’s too messy for some, and many need to view the world in strict black/white. But since the current structure of corporate success is arguably a male creation (we women still certainly don’t hold enough decisionmaking positions at major corporations to have completely changed the tide), it’s easier to focus on women not measuring up to that ideal than to look at the men who are rejecting it for what it is, which is frankly even more rebellous (and hence dangerous) than women taking that position.
hb
28. Oct, 2003
Most folks on these boards are debating the merits of leaving the workforce or staying on the fast track. Let’s put this article in some historical perspective shall we?
These cute anecdotes do not not qualify as hard journalism, it’s simply a trend article, written in an emotive style, to stir emotional reaction instead of logic. Here’s how to spot a trend article:
“The ‘trend story’ is not always labelled as such, but certain characteristics give it away: an absence of factual evidence or hard numbers; a tendency to cite only three or four women, typically anonymously, to establish the trend; the use of vague qualifiers like “there is a sense that” or “more and more”; a reliance of “authorities” such as consumer researchers and psychologists, who often support their assertions by citing other media trend stories.” (From Susan Faludi, BACKLASH)
One of the most shocking things about the article Lisa wrote, is that it fits this trend story style exactly. Her only data is that women are staying home more now than they did in 1998. Can anyone say ECONOMY? She doesn’t explore the other reasons why women might be home more now. For that matter, she doesn’t really quote any US Department of Labor Statistics to give the reader an objective view.
But in her defense, this isn’t the first time that the national press has run a trend story. Or even the New York Times for that matter. The thing is, when they are examined closely there are many problems.
Fortune 1986 cover story “Why Women are Bailing Out” Fact: statistics in this article didn’t back this up, see their revised article 1987.
Newsweek 1986 “Making it Work: How Women Balance the Demands of Jobs and Children.” FACT: Newsweek contradicted this article themselves with their 1987 Report on Women Who Work.
Twenty three years ago: a 1980 New York Times article “Young Women Now Say They Would Pick Family Over Careers” FACT: US Labor Stats proved this trend wrong, women increased their presence in the work force).
So are we going to see any hard numbers to back up the author’s ideas? Or will it fall by the wayside like so many other trend articles on this subject that are subsequently disproven?