BPadvertisementfrom

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Having it All: opt outs want back in

Posted on 06:03 by Unknown

No, you can't actually have it all -- neither as a man nor as a woman. If you want to spend time with your kids (I highly recommend it), that will take time away from your startup, hedge fund, climb up the ladder, investigations into quantum decoherence. You just have to strike a balance that you can deal with.

Men are on average more driven by career success and money than women, and similarly women are more, well, maternal than men. It's best to think about this (as with all questions dealing with groups of people) in terms of distributions rather than strict categories. There are outlier women who are better corporate warriors than 95% of men (but perhaps they comprise fewer than 5% of the female population!), and there are outlier men who are great stay at home dads. At least at the moment, and perhaps for deep evolutionary reasons, the male and female distributions are shifted relative to each other along these dimensions. To me, feminism means fighting for the rights of outliers to do what they want, while still respecting the larger number of women who might be happier in more traditional roles. In my opinion, noticing properties of distributions is not in any way anti-feminist.
NYTimes: ... The culture of motherhood, post-recession, had altered considerably, too. The women of the opt-out revolution left the work force at a time when the prevailing ideas about motherhood idealized full-time, round-the-clock, child-centered devotion. In 2000, for example, with the economy strong and books like “Surrendering to Motherhood,” a memoir about the “liberation” of giving up work to stay home, setting the tone for the aspirational mothering style of the day, almost 40 percent of respondents to the General Social Survey told researchers they believed a mother’s working was harmful to her children (an increase of eight percentage points since 1994). But by 2010, with recovery from the “mancession” slow and a record 40 percent of mothers functioning as family breadwinners, fully 75 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “a working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work.” And after decades of well-publicized academic inquiry into the effects of maternal separation and the dangers of day care, a new generation of social scientists was publishing research on the negative effects of excessive mothering: more depression and worse general health among mothers, according to the American Psychological Association.

I wondered if these changes affected the women who opted out years ago. Had they found the “escape hatch” from the rat race that one of Belkin’s interviewees said she was after? Were they able, as a vast majority said they had planned, to transition back into the work force? Or had they, as the author Leslie Bennetts predicted in her 2007 book, “The Feminine Mistake,” come to see that, by making themselves financially dependent upon their men — particularly at a time when no man could depend upon his job — they had made a colossal error?

The 22 women I interviewed, for the most part, told me that the perils of leaving the work force were counterbalanced by the pleasures of being able to experience motherhood on their own terms. A certain number of these women — the superelite, you might say, the most well-off, with the highest-value name-brand educational credentials and powerful and well-connected social networks — found jobs easily after extended periods at home. These jobs generally paid less than their previous careers and were less prestigious. But the women found the work more interesting, socially conscious and family-friendly than their old high-powered positions.

Pamela Stone, a professor of sociology at Hunter College and the author of the 2007 book “Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home,” heard many similarly glowing stories. In the early 2000s, she spent considerable time interviewing 54 well-off married mothers drawn primarily from the alumnae networks of several highly selective colleges and universities “who had navigated elite environments with competitive entry requirements,” as she described them in her book. Now she’s updating her research and has reached about 60 percent of her interviewees, two-thirds of whom have returned to work — their decisions sometimes prompted by their husbands’ somewhat reduced earnings, post-recession. “What I heard repeatedly was ‘The job found me’ or ‘The job fell into my lap,’ ” she told me.

Among the women I spoke with, those who didn’t have the highest academic credentials or highest-powered social networks or who hadn’t been sufficiently “strategic” in their volunteering (fund-raising for a Manhattan private school could be a nice segue back into banking; running bake sales for the suburban swim team tended not to be a career-enhancer) or who had divorced, often struggled greatly.
Note, moms with elite pedigrees have a much easier time getting back into the workforce after opting out to raise young kids.

Hmm ... this might affect average hourly wages by gender ... but too complex to make its way into the social science discourse ...
At a time when having a “good” job means working 50-plus hours a week, in addition to weekends and tech-tethered evenings, it’s not surprising that, if both spouses work, it can often feel as if neither is ever truly home. And that desire to be emotionally present at home, Pamela Stone, the sociologist, told me, became more pressing over time for the women she interviewed, reshaping their ambitions when they decided to go back to work.

While two-thirds of the women she reinterviewed originally worked in male-dominated professions like banking or corporate law, now only a quarter are employed in traditionally masculine and hard-driving fields. The rest chose more female-dominated, and far less lucrative, “caring, nurturing occupations” like teaching or nonprofit work, Stone said. Only one of the women she interviewed had returned to her former employer (in a “vastly different capacity, much diminished,” she said); and all have scaled down their ambitions.

“The longer they’re home, the more they continue the trajectory toward something different,” Stone told me. “They have greater appreciation of some of the values of home and connectivity, which were somewhat alien to them in their high-flying professions.”
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in american society, careers, elitism, gender, kids, success | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • PhD Comics: the movie
    PHD Movie Trailer from PHD Comics on Vimeo . I met Jorge Cham , the cartoonist who draws PhD Comics, a few years ago at Sci Foo. Cham was ...
  • Finding the Next Einstein
    Duke researcher Jonathan Wai interviewed me for his Psychology Today blog, Finding the Next Einstein . Below are my answers to two of his q...
  • Beanbags and causal variants
    Not only do these results implicate common causal variants as the source of heritability in disease susceptibility, but they also suggest th...
  • Sitzfleisch
    Freeman Dyson reviews the new biography of Oppenheimer by Ray Monk. I discussed the book already here . NYBooks : ... The subtitle, “A Life ...
  • UC Davis colloquium
    I'll be giving a colloquium at UC Davis on Monday. Please come if you can! slides Title: Genetics, intelligence and other quantitati...
  • A blog is born
    Raghu Parasarathy , a biophysicist at U Oregon, and my correspondent in this previous post on faculty blogging, has decided to try it out. ...
  • News from Microsoft Research Faculty Summit 2013
    Measuring the maximal commuting subset of observables uniquely determines the pure state of a quantum system (recently proved Kadison-Singer...
  • Talk cancelled
    This talk has been cancelled, for complex reasons that I will not discuss.
  • What is the difference?
    Some excerpts from a talk by Richard Hamming (inventor of, among other things, hamming codes ) on how to do great research. I recommend rea...
  • East Asian sociopaths?
    Some would assert that CEOs and other people in leadership positions are often warm sociopaths . Interestingly, it is claimed that there is ...

Categories

  • ability (2)
  • academia (9)
  • affirmative action (8)
  • ai (13)
  • aig (1)
  • alan turing (3)
  • algorithms (2)
  • alpha (2)
  • american society (54)
  • art (3)
  • ashkenazim (1)
  • aspergers (4)
  • athletics (6)
  • autism (4)
  • autobiographical (13)
  • basketball (4)
  • bayes (1)
  • behavioral economics (4)
  • berkeley (5)
  • bgi (24)
  • biology (23)
  • biotech (6)
  • bjj (5)
  • black holes (4)
  • blade runner (2)
  • blogging (3)
  • books (5)
  • borges (2)
  • bounded rationality (10)
  • brainpower (57)
  • bubbles (3)
  • caltech (14)
  • cambridge uk (1)
  • careers (18)
  • charles darwin (1)
  • chet baker (2)
  • China (25)
  • christmas (1)
  • class (2)
  • cognitive science (35)
  • cold war (1)
  • complexity (1)
  • computing (9)
  • conferences (4)
  • cosmology (4)
  • creativity (3)
  • credit crisis (10)
  • crossfit (5)
  • cryptography (2)
  • data mining (4)
  • dating (2)
  • demographics (1)
  • derivatives (5)
  • determinism (1)
  • digital books (1)
  • dna (4)
  • economic history (5)
  • economics (38)
  • econtalk (2)
  • ecosystems (1)
  • education (5)
  • efficient markets (8)
  • Einstein (2)
  • elitism (14)
  • encryption (1)
  • energy (1)
  • entrepreneurs (3)
  • entropy (1)
  • environmentalism (1)
  • eugene (3)
  • evolution (19)
  • expert prediction (6)
  • fake alpha (2)
  • feminism (2)
  • Fermi problems (2)
  • feynman (7)
  • film (9)
  • finance (42)
  • fitness (3)
  • flynn effect (1)
  • foo camp (1)
  • football (5)
  • france (1)
  • free will (1)
  • freeman dyson (2)
  • fx (2)
  • game theory (1)
  • geeks (2)
  • gender (4)
  • genetic engineering (15)
  • genetics (79)
  • genius (24)
  • genomics (2)
  • geopolitics (7)
  • gilded age (13)
  • global warming (1)
  • globalization (23)
  • godel (2)
  • goldman sachs (2)
  • google (4)
  • happiness (2)
  • harvard (8)
  • harvard society of fellows (5)
  • hedge funds (4)
  • hedonic treadmill (1)
  • height (2)
  • higher education (38)
  • history (8)
  • history of science (12)
  • hormones (3)
  • hugh everett (2)
  • human capital (34)
  • humor (1)
  • income inequality (21)
  • india (2)
  • industrial revolution (1)
  • innovation (38)
  • intellectual history (10)
  • intellectual property (1)
  • intellectual ventures (1)
  • internet (4)
  • iq (16)
  • italy (4)
  • james salter (3)
  • japan (4)
  • jiujitsu (8)
  • keynes (1)
  • kids (13)
  • lewontin fallacy (1)
  • lhc (1)
  • literature (12)
  • luck (1)
  • machine learning (8)
  • malcolm gladwell (1)
  • manhattan (2)
  • many worlds (10)
  • mathematics (14)
  • meritocracy (7)
  • microsoft (2)
  • mma (10)
  • monsters (2)
  • moore's law (1)
  • movies (9)
  • MSU (18)
  • music (5)
  • mutants (2)
  • nathan myhrvold (1)
  • neal stephenson (1)
  • neanderthals (2)
  • nerds (3)
  • net worth (5)
  • neuroscience (7)
  • new yorker (1)
  • nicholas metropolis (1)
  • noam chomsky (2)
  • nobel prize (2)
  • nsa (2)
  • nuclear weapons (5)
  • obama (7)
  • olympics (4)
  • oppenheimer (7)
  • patents (1)
  • personality (9)
  • philip k. dick (1)
  • philosophy of mind (2)
  • photos (40)
  • physical training (13)
  • physics (73)
  • podcasts (10)
  • political correctness (6)
  • politics (4)
  • pop culture (2)
  • prisoner's dilemma (1)
  • privacy (2)
  • probability (5)
  • prostitution (2)
  • psychology (25)
  • psychometrics (31)
  • qcd (1)
  • quants (9)
  • quantum computers (2)
  • quantum field theory (3)
  • quantum mechanics (18)
  • race relations (10)
  • real estate (1)
  • realpolitik (6)
  • renaissance technologies (1)
  • research (3)
  • russia (2)
  • sad but true (2)
  • sci fi (8)
  • science (42)
  • sec (1)
  • security (5)
  • silicon valley (6)
  • singularity (1)
  • smpy (1)
  • social networks (2)
  • social science (12)
  • software development (2)
  • solar energy (1)
  • sports (13)
  • startups (19)
  • statistics (16)
  • success (2)
  • taiwan (1)
  • talks (16)
  • teaching (2)
  • technology (34)
  • television (2)
  • travel (24)
  • turing test (1)
  • ufc (8)
  • ultimate fighting (1)
  • universities (33)
  • university of oregon (6)
  • usain bolt (2)
  • venture capital (3)
  • volatility (1)
  • von Neumann (10)
  • wall street (2)
  • war (1)
  • warren buffet (1)
  • wwii (3)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (134)
    • ▼  August (10)
      • Sitzfleisch
      • Hollywood discovers theoretical physics
      • David Epstein and self-censorship
      • Science and the Humanities
      • Having it All: opt outs want back in
      • Helter Skelter
      • Holistic mumbo jumbo
      • Working in the dark
      • O Rio de Janeiro
      • Suketu Mehta in Brazil
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (21)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2012 (222)
    • ►  December (17)
    • ►  November (19)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (19)
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2011 (144)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (13)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile