Highly educated, 30-something white women choose not to rule the world!

[astro]

This article in Salon- “Clueless in Manhattan” by Joan Walsh criticizes the article in The New York Times by Lisa Belkin “The Opt-Out Revolution”

Walsh characterizes Belkin’s perspective as a blinkered, lightweight, elitist analysis that short changes women’s real ambitions by making it OK to “opt out”, and make the non-pursuit of power and fame an empowering choice that is quite deliberately chosen. In reading Belkin’s article, however, I’m not so sure Walsh’s critique is really on point, as she mainly seems to be saying it’s OK not to want to to rule the world. Is this a valid and empowering, practical real world choice that women can make without being anti-feminist, or is this simply the rationalization of a “small cohort of privileged 30-something white women” choosing the easy way out.

Belkin-The Opt-Out Revolution -

The scene in this cozy Atlanta living room would – at first glance – warm an early feminist’s heart. Gathered by the fireplace one recent evening, sipping wine and nibbling cheese, are the members of a book club, each of them a beneficiary of all that feminists of 30-odd years ago held dear.

The eight women in the room have each earned a degree from Princeton, which was a citadel of everything male until the first co-educated class entered in 1969. And after Princeton, the women of this book club went on to do other things that women once were not expected to do. They received law degrees from Harvard and Columbia. They chose husbands who could keep up with them, not simply support them. They waited to have children because work was too exciting. They put on power suits and marched off to take on the world.

Yes, if an early feminist could peer into this scene, she would feel triumphant about the future. Until, of course, any one of these polished and purposeful women opened her mouth.

‘‘I don’t want to be on the fast track leading to a partnership at a prestigious law firm,’’ says Katherine Brokaw, who left that track in order to stay home with her three children. ‘‘Some people define that as success. I don’t.’’

‘‘I don’t want to be famous; I don’t want to conquer the world; I don’t want that kind of life,’’ says Sarah McArthur Amsbary, who was a theater artist and teacher and earned her master’s degree in English, then stepped out of the work force when her daughter was born. ‘‘Maternity provides an escape hatch that paternity does not. Having a baby provides a graceful and convenient exit.’’

Walsh -“Clueless in Manhattan”

There’s a smug assurance in Belkin’s piece that the women who’ve “opted out” figured out some secret about the world. But the secret is, motherhood is consuming and tiring. It’s also temporary, or at least the consuming, tiring part is. And then you’re back in the world. What are you going to do there?

For most women, being the mother of young children lasts a finite amount of time, and there’s time in there to do great things – and more time later to do even greater things. Belkin and her subjects are a dangerous combination of smug and tired – a combination I recognize from experience, but it passes. They need to take time off, since they can afford it, and stop rationalizing it. They also need to look for workplaces that will make it possible to combine work and family. I’m lucky enough to work in one, where the chief financial officer and the head of advertising sales are mothers; where dads, too, bring their kids to work when they’re sick, and no, it’s not the New York Times, but it’s a great job.

There’s an arrogant assumption in Belkin’s piece that she’s doing something better than running the Times: raising her kids. It’s her life, it’s her choice, if that’s her path I’m glad she’s happy with it. But the notion that she and her venerated “Opt-Out Revolution” subjects are making the right choice for all mothers, let alone all women, is really pernicious. I think it’s great that she and these groovy book-group moms are putting their kids first. I put my daughter first, too. But don’t speak for me. Don’t say this is the way we all added it up and decided it was going to be. Most of us are actually trying to do both, raise our kids and do the best job we can, whether or not it leads us to the top of the New York Times. And many of us are going to get to the top, in our own time and according to our definition of the top, whether the Times magazine notices or not.

[butter_pie]

Well if they don’t want to rule the world, when I reach 30 I’ll be quite happy to do it for them.

[Blonde]

Damn. I only have 4 months left to rule the world? I have absolutely nothing to wear.

[Essured]

And once again they completely ignore the existence of women who don’t particularly crave motherhood OR a career. Or who crave both and manage fine.

Why on earth, in 2003, do people still assume a women can choose from only two options ? Or do both badly ? Haven’t we all got beyond that yet ?

[ratatoskK]

It’s easier to opt out of ruling the world when you have married a man who is ruling the world. So you are in effect ruling the world by proxy.

If these women had to support their families, they’d go out and get a job!

[Miabella]

OK, I will step up and admit that the description of these women fits me pretty well.

I’m pushing 30, I have a very good job where I feel that I am being groomed towards positions of power and responsibility, and I will soon be finished with my M.A. from Johns Hopkins University. I’m also married and have no kids and no plans to have any.

But I don’t really want to move much higher in my career than I am right now. I don’t want the buck to stop here. I like my job, I enjoy the work I do and feel it’s important. But I don’t want to be in charge, and money, although nice, is only important up to the point that I can pay my bills and live in reasonable comfort with something in the bank. I’m more interested in freedom from worry and inconvenience than owning expensive stuff.

Like I said, I probably won’t have any children. It’s not that I hate kids, but they just don’t capture my imagination in the way my other interests do. And I think that bringing children into an environment where they are not wholeheartedly desired is a pretty unfair thing to do.

Like Goo said, many of us have other interests that supercede career and children.

[Belrix]

If I can speak as a member of the “XY” set…

I have no illusions that I’ll one day rule the world. I’m a techno-geek and I’ve risen about as high as I can go in this field without converting to management. Frankly, I’m good at what I do and I enjoy doing it.

As a man, I feel that I also have pressure to move up and succeed more. Saying that I’m content with what I have is going against the standard male expectations, too.

I see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to against the “feminist expectation”.

Heck, the only reason to rule the world, for me, is better salary.