HIGHLY educated women are getting a bum rap from the press. There has recently been a spate of news and opinion articles telling us that these women, especially graduates of the best universities and professional schools, are “opting out” in record numbers, choosing the comforts of home and family over careers.
And because there are now 1.33 women graduating from college for every man, the best and brightest women will either have to “marry down” or, more likely, we are told, remain single. Taken together, highly educated women will have either family or career. Half of it all, rather than “having it all.”
But the facts speak loudly and clearly against such suppositions. Women who graduated 25 years ago from the nation’s top colleges did not “opt out” in large numbers, and today’s graduates aren’t likely to do so either.
Yeah. Remember all those handwringing articles the Times has run lately about elite women opting out? Where the samples were some women currently in college who thought they’d drop out of the workforce when they had kids, and women who were selected from the Times’ wedding announcements, which means that they themselves or their husbands were rich and/or important enough to get the Times to run their wedding announcements in the first place, meaning that they probably didn’t have to work to pay student loans or the mortgage?
They weren’t really backed up by the facts.
To know whether a woman sacrificed career for her family, we need to know her employment status over many years. The Mellon Foundation did just that in the mid-1990′s, collecting information on more than 10,000 women (and 10,000 men) who entered one of 34 highly selective colleges and universities in 1976 and graduated by 1981. We thus have detailed data about their educational, family and work histories when they were in their late 30′s. That gives us enough information to figure out whether many women who graduated from top-ranked schools have left the work force.
Among these women fully 58 percent were never out of the job market for more than six months total in the 15 or so years that followed college or more advanced schooling. On average, the women in the survey spent a total of just 1.6 years out of the labor force, or 11 percent of their potential working years. Just 7 percent spent more than half of their available time away from employment.
I’m living proof that not everyone who graduates from a top-ranked school can opt out of the workforce. While I went to a good-but-not-great state school for undergrad, I went to a top-10 law school, and eventually got a job at the biggest law firm in New York, a prestige job. I lasted two years, the worst two years of my life, before choosing to go the contracting route. Had I stayed at my firm, I would probably be a hopeless drunk from the stress, but I’d also be pulling in over $200K a year and might possibly have paid off my student loans by now, 10 years after graduating.
In other words, I can’t not work. And what with the high cost of living here, I would very likely not be able to quit work even had I married another lawyer, because he would have student loans to pay and then there would be the rent or mortgage, and whatnot.
I think you can only seriously consider quitting if you marry an investment banker or stockbroker. They’re the ones who make the serious money.
You could argue that they opted out of their careers in more subtle ways, say, by choosing less demanding careers than those for which they had trained. But the occupation data for these women suggest otherwise. Women in these graduating classes stuck with their specialties to about the same degree as did comparable men. The vast majority of women who went to medical school were employed as doctors when in their late 30′s; similarly, women who received law degrees were practicing lawyers.
This is something else I’ve observed: while men will often tough it out at the soul-crushing law firms, women will often find other ways to practice law that offer room for advancement but still provide a modicum of personal time, such as government service. While there were few female partners at any of the private firms I worked at (and there was a definite stratification there — the oldest ones were unmarried and had no children, while the ones who were a bit younger also managed to have families, probably as a result of the trail blazed by the older ones), when I worked for the city government, probably a majority of the senior attorneys and division chiefs were female.
And yet there were many female associates at the private firms where I worked — at my first firm, there were 10 female associates to four male associates, but only 2 of the 13 partners were female. Part of that, I’m sure, is a reflection of the larger proportion of women graduating from law schools nowadays and the fact that law firms will actually hire them as lawyers (as opposed to calendar clerks, like my Harvard-educated (albeit batshit crazy) boss at one firm, or secretaries, like editor-in-chief of the Stanford Law Review Sandra Day O’Connor, both of whom graduated in the early 60s).
Of course, not everything has changed:
I’m not saying that all is rosy. These hard-working women still earn less than their male counterparts and they work more around the house. Given their lower earnings, it isn’t surprising that some do opt out. But for the most part, female college graduates — especially those from top-notch schools — who are in their 30′s are career women who care for their children if they have them and work hard for their families.
The piece finishes with an interesting observation about why stories about the “opt-out revolution” are proving so difficult to kill:
These are the opt-out facts. So why is there so much focus on women leaving the work force instead? My friend Ellen, a Ph.D. economist with two young children who teaches in a top-ranked medical school, recently noted with frustration that many people have difficulty believing that “women can actually contribute professionally and participate meaningfully in the raising of a family.” But the truth is that a greater fraction of college women today are mixing family life and career than ever before. Denying that fact is ignoring the facts.
And again, there’s a distinction between “opting out” 1950′s style–not working at all, ever–and taking a few years off to be home with kids, then returning to work, or working from home (would be my choice!), or working part time, or any number of the options many women take.
The numbers who opt out completely are probably quite low, and near zero in Manhattan, where $70k is barely enough to live on. many opt for the other things. Some might argue that your work doesn’t count in the “career world” unless you work at the office, and thus that working at home is the same as SAH. Others would consider all those options as “going back to work.” It seems to depend who you ask.
I disagree, however, that you have to marry a very rich man to stay home, but to a large degree it depends what you’re willing to give up, and most folks would have to give up a ton to stay home permanently.
I know of many people (mostly outside NYC) who choose to cut a lot of corners in order to be home, more than I’d want to cut. I’ve known of families cutting out cable TV and cell phones or even internet access, as well as any amount of eating out (even the occasional Friday night pizza) just so that Mom can be at home.
One blogger I’ve read lives in an inner-city neighborhood with 7 kids, by choice, because her husband is a freelancer but she wanted to be home (and doesn’t believe in birth control either, for the record! :P). They can’t afford a mortgage on $30k/year, so they chose to rent in a not-so-safe area.
Another blogger’s husband is in law school and she’s a SAHM on their income of $10k/year, again, no contraception and just taking chances.
And in many of such cases, the couple does not mind being in quite a bit of debt–I would.
None of the above situations would be my choice. I’m a huge SAH advocate, but I’m aware that it just isn’t possible for everyone in this day and age, which is just a sad reality. Even though I probably will be able to live in New Jersey and stay at home at least for a few years (I don’t intend to permanently), I admittedly speak with some privilege here and also admit that there are only so many corners I think I’d like to cut. YMMV.
At least in the Northeast, staying at home and “opting out” does require marrying rich. In the Midwest though, many families live comfortably on $50k, which is a lower-range white collar salary.
The problem is that a lot of “opt out” advocates usually insist that anyone who doesn’t want to live that way–cutting every, single, last corner–is selfish. The classic one was someone who told me that I should be willing to go without birth control because when her great-grandfather came here in 1920-something, he raised 6 children in an abandoned boxcar while his wife stayed home. She thought I was selfish for not wanting to live the boxcar life. Wow.
They aren’t getting an entirely bad rap; it’s often said that educated women are more willing to engage in oral and anal sex.
It isn’t that hard to opt out. My wife is a Smithie and has been a Pawn of the Patriarchy for 10 years now (tomorrow is our 14th anniversary). Sure, its tough; no, I’m not an investment banker; no, the student loans never go away. You just need to want it.
There’s the rub; not everyone wants to opt out. Yet the Times is trying its damnedest to reinforce the idea that women should want to opt out.
Using the term “opting-out” seems to reinforce the value judgement. “Opting-out” of the paid workforce in order to stay home with children is just “opting-in” to something different and, as Marian pointed out, it’s most likely temporary. What exactly do we gain by reinforcing value judgements on individual decisions and when is going to end? (rhetorical, of course)
And, as an educated woman who recently “opted out” (my husband is not an investment banker and we live paycheck to paycheck now) I can say that I never really felt I was “in”. To confirm this, I point to the fact that the man who replaced me makes almost twice what I made. I know because I helped hire him before I left.
I’m a young woman who will be entering law school next fall. I’d love to get some advice from you. If you have the time, please email me at the address I provided here.
We put outselves on daycare waiting lists when I was four months pregnant. We enrolled our son as soon as a spot opened up, when he was nine months old. Meanwhile, I stayed home with my son and worked on my dissertation when I could (my husband usually covered 3 days per week, then I also had nap time). Was I “opting out”? When my son was a toddler I was teaching one class a term and writing my dissertation. We could only get two days of daycare per week (mega long waiting lists), so my husband (also an academic) worked Sunday-Thursday and I worked Tues. and Thurs.-Sat. Was I opting out? Certianly most people considered me a stay-at-home mom. Now, I’m not teaching at all, and have no income, but I’ve had my Ph.D. for two years, teach part time now and then and have had three academic articles accepted for publication in the past nine months. Am I opting out now? I’ve applied for every full time job that’s come up in my field (of which there were 5 in two years and I’m on the short list for one now). If I were single I probably would have relocated for part-time work in my field. But if I were married without a child I think I’d be in the exact position I’m in now. So, I might count as a woman who opted out. Would my husband if our positions were reversed?
Kate and Rachel both make good points. What is considered “opting out” as opposed to just “taking a leave of absence,” or “going part time?”
We have types like Linda Hirshman who seem to think that women who don’t immediately go back full-time after their maternity leave is up, are opting out. Hirshman believes things like part-time are damaging to women’s status in the career world.
Then we have my in-laws’ friend, who is a CPA and quit wen her kids were born, then went back, then quit again while they were in HS, and will go back when they’re in college. Is that an “opt” or just “taking breaks?”
What I’d consider an “opt” is this: my newly-married cousin-in-law (mentioned on my blog), who at 19, isn’t sure she ever wants to work (kids or no kids!), because she knows her husband’s family is wealthy and will support her. I’d say that’s definitely the type of “opt out” the NYT is talking about. But how many people actually choose that route, unless they *are* members of the elite? Not many I don’t think. In fact, most of our family is fairly disturbed that she would do that, especially since kids won’t be in the picture for quite a while.
That’s another big distinction: a couple of the NYT articles seemed to refer to “opting out” without necessarily having kids first. One involves making time for your childrearing, however you see fit; the other involves just being a housewife, mommy or not a mommy. What do folks think of that, just curious?
I also wonder, just for kicks, if the NYT thinks it is a good thing when women opt out, or not? What tone do you pick up from their articles on this stuff? Is it “This is what women should do,” or “This is what the spoiled rich kids do?”
what’s strange about this dialogue is that many men would LOVE to not work, even if it meant wrasslin’ with the kids all day. it seems that a lot of women are afraid they’ll be pushed out of the workforce by a couple nyt articles. we should be more afraid that men might notice that staying home with the kids is a pretty sweet gig, and it’ll get more competitive.
You kiddin’? The spoiled rich kids are their staff and their intended audience for these things, which always seem to run in the Style section, as if opting out were some fashionable choice.
This is something else I’ve observed: while men will often tough it out at the soul-crushing law firms, women will often find other ways to practice law that offer room for advancement but still provide a modicum of personal time, such as government service.
Excellent observation! Now, the cynics amongst us are aware that there is some group of women lawyers out there looking at the disparity of female law partners and claiming that this is a result of a discriminatory environment.
The reporter observes: These hard-working women still earn less than their male counterparts and they work more around the house. Given their lower earnings, it isn’t surprising that some do opt out.
This is sloppy and there is conflation going on here. The female-male earnings ratio is indeed skewed. Some research was done on this and they found that when factors (hours worked, place of employment, law school grades, etc) that the pay differential came down to 11% (but the study didn’t control for issues like quality of performance, cases won, clients brought into the firm) but when they looked at factors like moot court performance or law review participation they found that there was no pay differential at all. Further, the pay differential was stronger for the graduates of the 1991 class and there was no pay differential for the 1999 graduates.
As for the work around the house, that’s an issue separate from law school, and is best left to the husband and wife to sort out for themselves.
When the repoter concludes “Given their lower earnings, it isn’t surprising that some do opt out” it shouldn’t be taken that the lower earnings are a structural feature of women’s employment. There are choices involved here and the reporter hasn’t established any causal linkage between lower earnings and dropping out, though the thesis does have an intuitive appeal to it – the lower earning spouse is the best candidate to drop out of the work force.
Women who graduated 25 years ago from the nation’s top colleges did not “opt out” in large numbers, and today’s graduates aren’t likely to do so either.
Faulty reasoning go on here. What the reporter doesn’t address is that today’s cohort of women internalize the lessons learned by yesterday’s cohort. There are a number of women who are now childless and resentful of that status. They were under the impression that they could start trying for a child in their mid to late 30s and they have had a rude shock that a door they always counted on has been closed permanently. I’ve personally seen this play out a number of times. The message of these women is filtering out to the younger cohort. This is a new piece of the decision analysis that the older cohort didn’t have in their decision universe.
That’s another big distinction: a couple of the NYT articles seemed to refer to “opting out” without necessarily having kids first. One involves making time for your childrearing, however you see fit; the other involves just being a housewife, mommy or not a mommy.
Minor quibble: If I could afford it, I’d quit my job in a heartbeat, even though I don’t have kids, because I have lots of extracurricular interests that I’d love to pursue and that could maybe, if I had enough time and attention for them, become “real” (i.e., income-generating) work themselves.
What is work, anyhow? If it’s anything that requires dedication and focus, well, then keeping a house clean is work. “Wrasslin’ with the kids” is work. Making dinner is work. Serious hobbies are work. All these things are, in fact, paid jobs somewhere or another; how does the fact that they don’t generate an income make them not-work?
Really, that seems like the problem here: the fact that women ever choose work in which they (*gasp*) earn money. Conservatives don’t want women to opt out of anything; they just want them to work for free.
When I worked at the Evil Empire, two female associates were pregnant at the same time that two counsel’s wives were pregnant. The associates had various medical issues with their pregnancies, but were expected to put in the hours anyone else did or take leave.
The male counsels (sort of an intermediate position between associate and partner when there aren’t any partner slots available) would take time off when their wives were having morning sickness.
Moreover, the female attorneys who had children wound up picking up the slack on the childcare even though they worked as much as their husbands, or more.
There very definitely has been discrimination in the promotion of partners, and there have been obstacles, whether generated by firm culture or generated by society at large, placed in the paths of female associates who want to balance parenthood and partnership. Some choose to go part-time, which means they can kiss partnership goodbye. Some leave the firm and seek other employment.
Remember, I worked with women who very definitely were discriminated against in even getting hired as attorneys in the first place, despite stellar credentials. They also came out of a time when very few women were even allowed into law school in the first place. They have told me that things have improved but are nowhere near equal.
Remember, I worked with women who very definitely were discriminated against in even getting hired as attorneys in the first place, despite stellar credentials. They also came out of a time when very few women were even allowed into law school in the first place.
I’m not trying to argue that no discrimination occurred, or that it’s not possible even now. The woman you mention was a courageous trailblazer who likely had to put up with a lot of shit. Kudos to her. Really. I’m not trying to diminish the unfairness of her situation nor take away from her fortitude, talent, and skill.
I can acknowledge that she got the dirty end of the stick and also acknowledge that matters have improved today. Between the opening and the closing of the decade of the 90s the salary gender differential in law was closed completely. Now, the issue is one of personal choices leading to differential outcomes.
Moreover, the female attorneys who had children wound up picking up the slack on the childcare even though they worked as much as their husbands, or more.
These women are equal partners in a marriage – there is no power imbalance within the home like their may be at work. They need to renegotiate the home life situation. That’s none of society’s business.
As for the examples you gave of pregnancy complications it’s either blatant discrimination or it’s not. If it’s not, then there is a rational reason that is not part of your narrative. It’s hard to judge. What does pregnancy complication mean? If these women need to take a week off from work, that’s different than a male lawyer taking a morning off from work to be with his wife. If we don’t have details, then it’s hard to make any judgement. That said, I’d believe that there was a double standard and if there was then the firm should be sued.
Both! Highly educated women with careers are selfish yuppies. Highly educated women who opt out are lazy and spoiled.
I know I sound like a broken record, but the media and our society keeps wanting to focus on a certain class of women and how they make choices about family and career without considering the following very important peices:
1. Women who are married to someone who can earn something of a living above poverty level have the ability to ponder ‘opting out’ with their partner.
2. Class paradigms play a huge role in the choices women see for themselves and thus the choices they make. Some break out of the mold, but most don’t.
3. Single women with children, even high earners don’t have before them the option of opting out either unless they have a family or partner who will pick up the slack.
What I always found ironic was that during the welfare debates, women who had the ability to stay at home were chastised as being selfish and driven. These same women had a justifiable fear that once leaving their position, the door would not be open to them or the time they lost ‘earning points’ would count heavily against them upon their return.
Then there are those, so many of those situations in married working class families where both must work in order to afford a modest house and family maintenance. Even though the women/mother often has to handle dual roles of mother and worker and the earnings may be about the same for both partner, to ‘opt out’ could spell disaster for their shakily built house of cards. Some attempt to improve their earnings by attending school part-time or even full time, but a sacrifice in earnings must follow and some are just too scared to take that step.
Then lower down the scale, are those women who find themselves unable to even consider ‘opting out’ because if they are married to a poor earner or if they have no partner to assist, everything they earn counts toward survival; there is no margin for error or for a break.
I had to ‘opt out’ as a single parent as my children had issues that needed my full attention during their grade school and junior high years. Even though continuing to work would have meant that I would have had to effectively sacrifice my children’s future, I was continuously criticized for the choice I made.
Framing the opting out option in a high earner’s world completely ignores those many women who for many reasons other than career mobility or advancement, have very limited choices in this arena.
But as always in this class-based patriarchy, the further a woman slides down the economic ladder, the less her experience counts for anything and models that have no relation to her whatsoever are continuously trumpeted as the ‘solution for women’ or the ‘problem’ of working women, blah, blah.
Might I also end by positing that higher paid/educated women are still perceived as a threat. Men who harbor a secret jealousy that some women are better educated and higher earning than they just revel in the idea that these women are really unhappy and living unfulfilled lives.
Just serves to warn all the girls out there, ‘Look at what happened to her when she thought of herself and went to law school! She’s all confused and is all out of touch with her womenhood, can’t even figure out whether to stay home with the kids or not. Don’t get too educated or you’re gonna suffer and become a selfish slut just like her.”
Women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, an intentional paradox to keep them doubting and unsure and off balance. The only thing that women need to do is stop thinking some male-owned, male-dominated social system has something to tell her about who she is or should be.
That mantra, which seems to seep through all these articles makes me sick, sick, sick.
I think all of you have made some excellent points, on both ends!
I was so gladdened by this piece. Really, I thought it was the perfect corrective to the shit the Times has been running. The author made her point, presented her evidence and reached a very sound, convincing convincing conclusion. One, two, three. If I were teaching composition, I’d be clipping this out to show my students–
This, class, is what we call a paper with a purpose. It’s persuaseive writing. Her goal is to show that the trend in clobbering the readin’ public with ‘opting-out’ articles is 1) misinformed and presenting a picture of American women that is not in keeping with anything the numbers that studies conducted by real statisticans and social scientists have come up with over the last three decades (as opposed to polling, like, 12 girls at Yale about their personal idea of happiness) and 2) motivated by sexist attitudes and beliefs.
I think this is a good model for how to engage with people like Tierney: don’t. Or rather: don’t let him, and condescending asshats like him, steer the discourse. You don’t need to respond to every stupid point they make or every wacky theory they fling at you. I’m aware I’m not really participating in the converation here. Sorry. I just think it’s fine essay, that’s all.
(I may cross-post a version of this comment on my blog. Or I may not. Who knows?)
TangoMan, can we quit pretending personal choices are made in a vacuum?
while men will often tough it out at the soul-crushing law firms
Not exactly–it’s more that the people who tough it out at soul-crushing law firms tend to be male, because a) there’s already a male elite ruling the firm and b) nobody expects them to quit when they have children.
Of course, the supposition about women leaving the work force permanently and this study about women’s work patterns *are* serparated by a generation.
I’m just sayin’
Huh. I like it that the opter-outers assume that all women want to be married. Not even close.
Hmm…any chance of being able to sue them for sexual discrimination and “opt-out” for a few years off of the settlement?
I’m having a hard time getting excited about this Mellon study. Goldin doesn’t mention that if fifty percent of women with children took less than 6 months out of the work force, fifty percent took 3.7 to 4.2 years off, constituting 25 to 28% of their potential time. Goldin doesn’t define unemployment and employment, so we don’t know whether employed women were working part-time or reduced schedules, as many studies indicate that they are. Goldin claims that females who went to law school are still practicing law today, but she doesn’t mention that they’re not practicing law at the most-prestigious and highest-paid levels, largely because of the incompatibility of schedules at the top with the demands of their families. And Goldin pays short shrift to the reality that if women are making less and working less than their husbands, their careers will further become the subordinate ones, they’ll be more financially dependent, more vulnerable in cases of divorce, less powerful within the relationship, and even more likely to take on the majority of family responsibilities. If you’re interested, I’ve got a post on this subject at Bad Feminist (http://badfeminist.blogspot.com/2006/03/opt-out-revolution.html).
If you are not being paid the same as a co-worker with an equal or substantially equal job description at the basically same location your employer is violating the Equal Pay Act and you may take action through the local Equal Opportunity Commission (or whatever your jurisdiction calls it). There is however a strict statute of limitations. You may also be helped by the local Wage & Hour division of the Department of Labor or they can refer you.
Very true. I also think that they are less flexible in their idea of what an appropriate successful career path is, given that men are taught from early on that their identities are wrapped up in their jobs.
He seems to have left the building.