Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Article About Babies, Women, etc.
The Nation ^ | Katha Pollitt

Posted on 05/02/2002 2:47:57 AM PDT by SpyderTim

COLUMN | May 13, 2002

KATHA POLLITT Backlash Babies: Subject to Debate

A long time ago I dated a 28-year-old man who told me the first time we went out that he wanted to have seven children. Subsequently, I was involved for many years with an already middle-aged man who also claimed to be eager for fatherhood. How many children have these now-gray gentlemen produced in a lifetime of strenuous heterosexuality? None. But because they are men, nobody's writing books about how they blew their lives, missed the brass ring, find life a downward spiral of serial girlfriends and work that's lost its savor. We understand, when we think about men, that people often say they want one thing while making choices that over time show they care more about something else, that circumstances get in the way of many of our wishes and that for many "have kids" occupies a place on the to-do list between "learn Italian" and "exercise."

Change the sexes, though, and the same story gets a different slant. According to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, today's 50-something women professionals are in deep mourning because, as the old cartoon had it, they forgot to have children--until it was too late, and too late was a whole lot earlier than they thought. In her new book, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, Hewlett claims she set out to record the triumphant, fulfilled lives of women in mid-career only to find that success had come at the cost of family: Of "ultra-achieving" women (defined as earning $100,000-plus a year), only 57 percent were married, versus 83 percent of comparable men, and only 51 percent had kids at 40, versus 81 percent among the men. Among "high-achieving" women (at least $65,000 or $55,000 a year, depending on age), 33 percent are childless at 40 versus 25 percent of men.

Why don't more professional women have kids? Hewlett's book nods to the "brutal demands of ambitious careers," which are still structured according to the life patterns of men with stay-at-home wives, and to the distaste of many men for equal relationships with women their own age. I doubt there's a woman over 35 who'd quarrel with that. But what's gotten Hewlett a cover story in Time ("Babies vs. Careers: Which Should Come First for Women Who Want Both?") and instant celebrity is not her modest laundry list of family-friendly proposals--paid leave, reduced hours, career breaks. It's her advice to young women: Be "intentional" about children--spend your twenties snagging a husband, put career on the back burner and have a baby ASAP. Otherwise, you could end up like world-famous playwright and much-beloved woman-about-town Wendy Wasserstein, who we are told spent some $130,000 to bear a child as a single 48-year-old. (You could also end up like, oh I don't know, me, who married and had a baby nature's way at 37, or like my many successful-working-women friends who adopted as single, married or lesbian mothers and who are doing just fine, thank you very much.)

Danielle Crittenden, move over! Hewlett calls herself a feminist, but Creating a Life belongs on the backlash bookshelf with What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, The Rules, The Surrendered Wife, The Surrendered Single (!) and all those books warning women that feminism--too much confidence, too much optimism, too many choices, too much "pickiness" about men--leads to lonely nights and empty bassinets. But are working women's chances of domestic bliss really so bleak? If 49 percent of ultra-achieving women don't have kids, 51 percent do--what about them? Hewlett seems determined to put the worst possible construction on working women's lives, even citing the long-discredited 1986 Harvard-Yale study that warned that women's chances of marrying after 40 were less than that of being killed by a terrorist. As a mother of four who went through high-tech hell to produce last-minute baby Emma at age 51, she sees women's lives through the distorting lens of her own obsessive maternalism, in which nothing, but nothing, can equal looking at the ducks with a toddler, and if you have one child, you'll be crying at the gym because you don't have two. For Hewlett, childlessness is always a tragic blunder, even when her interviewees give more equivocal responses. Thus she quotes academic Judith Friedlander calling childlessness a "creeping non-choice," without hearing the ambivalence expressed in that careful phrasing. Not choosing--procrastinating, not insisting, not focusing--is often a way of choosing, isn't it? There's no room in Hewlett's view for modest regret, moving on or simple acceptance of childlessness, much less indifference, relief or looking on the bright side--the feelings she advises women to cultivate with regard to their downsized hopes for careers or equal marriages. But Hewlett's evidence that today's childless "high achievers" neglected their true desire is based on a single statistic, that only 14 percent say they knew in college that they didn't want kids--as if people don't change their minds after 20.

This is not to deny that many women are caught in a time trap. They spend their twenties and thirties establishing themselves professionally, often without the spousal support their male counterparts enjoy, perhaps instead being supportive themselves, like the surgeon Hewlett cites approvingly who graces her fiancé's business dinners after thirty-six-hour hospital shifts. By the time they can afford to think of kids, they may indeed have trouble conceiving. But are these problems that "intentionality" can solve? Sure, a woman can spend her twenties looking for love--and show me one who doesn't! But will having a baby compensate her for blinkered ambitions and a marriage made with one eye on the clock? Isn't that what the mothers of today's 50-somethings did, going to college to get their Mrs. degree and taking poorly paid jobs below their capacities because they "combined" well with wifely duties? What makes Hewlett think that disastrous recipe will work out better this time around?

More equality and support, not lowered expectations, is what women need, at work and at home. It's going to be a long struggle. If women allow motherhood to relegate them to secondary status in both places, as Hewlett advises, we'll never get there. Meanwhile, a world with fewer female surgeons, playwrights and professors strikes me as an infinitely inferior place to live.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
In the words of Dave Matthews, "so much to say, so much to say..." I don't know where to begin. I'll try...

Notice that the author accuses Hewlett of injecting her own "distorting lens of her own obsessive maternalism" into the book. Ahh, but isn't Ms. Pollitt injecting her own lens (a distorted one at that!)into her article? Of course. And what's wrong with a little self-reflection in this particular brand of writing (the book or the article)? None. Nevertheless, she uses it as one of the points of her argument.

I hope I'm not the only one who picked up on that.

1 posted on 05/02/2002 2:47:57 AM PDT by SpyderTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
There is not enough anti-depressant medication in the world to treat all the chronic, hopeless depression suffered childless women who wake up from a lifetime of narcissism, promiscuity, and "career."
2 posted on 05/02/2002 2:54:42 AM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
...or a pill that they can take to cure the "B-I-itch Syndrome"!!!
3 posted on 05/02/2002 3:02:29 AM PDT by gr8eman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
want some cheese to go along with that whine?
4 posted on 05/02/2002 3:32:37 AM PDT by camle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman
Glad to have a Filipino stay at home wife bump!
5 posted on 05/02/2002 3:33:11 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
If more stay at home Filipeno ladies were available, there would be a lot more content men in America.
6 posted on 05/02/2002 3:37:52 AM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
Methinks Ms. Pollitt doth protest too much......

Guess Hewlett's book just struck too close to home with 'er.........and we all know that the hit dog yelps loudest.

7 posted on 05/02/2002 3:41:59 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: friendly
And a lot more lumpia...now, if only there were some place around here to get it.
8 posted on 05/02/2002 3:51:48 AM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob & friendly
Huge lumpia and adobo bump, Salamat Po.
9 posted on 05/02/2002 3:54:12 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Had to look it up:

Lumpia ( loom'-pee-yah \\ Philippine Style Egg Rolls ) Lumpia has always been one of the all-time favorite foods of the Philippines.

Sounds good to me. Any suggestions?

10 posted on 05/02/2002 3:54:34 AM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Adobo: a Philippine national dish of braised chicken or pork. Guess it goes well with lumpia.
11 posted on 05/02/2002 3:56:54 AM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: friendly
Your are a 'Net research hound! My compliments.

I'll tell you a quick story about adobo. When my wife first made adobo for me, it was so dang good I put down my spoon and went to the garage and brought in a shovel to use. Real story, one we still laugh about.

It was a new, clean shovel by the way...LOL

12 posted on 05/02/2002 4:07:47 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
You just inspired me to go look for a Filipeno restaurant.
13 posted on 05/02/2002 4:15:52 AM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
If a woman wants to have kids eventually but is listening to these feminists and believes a very high paying career must be established first then she deserves not to have them. A woman doesn't have to have 3 kids before she's 20 either and have no career ---but to have both kids and a career some compromises have to be made. A less glamorous job, instead of 6 figure incomes a nice middle range one. There have always been traditionally female jobs for that reason ---women like flexibility and part time jobs so they can have kids too.
14 posted on 05/02/2002 4:35:46 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: friendly
Don't just go for the food, look for a Filipina while you are there!
15 posted on 05/02/2002 4:52:04 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
What pisses these feminists off the most is that they can't have their babies and become men at the same time. They tried to level the playing field by asserting falsely that the only significant differences between male and female were due to the rearing environment. Hard biological data and the tragedies of sexually reassigned male infants (due to that theomaniacal idiot, Dr. John Money) blew that theory out of the water.
16 posted on 05/02/2002 6:00:50 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Glad to have a Filipino stay at home wife bump!

Glad to have an American stay at home wife and mother bump!

See, there are still some real women out there. You just have to look hard to find them.

God Save America (Please)

17 posted on 05/02/2002 6:34:44 AM PDT by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SpyderTim
There's no room in Hewlett's view for modest regret, moving on or simple acceptance of childlessness, much less indifference, relief or looking on the bright side . . . .

Maybe because she actually wanted people to read her book?
One of the reasons you are still single, Ms. Pollitt, is because men quickly learn that you're a ditz.

18 posted on 05/02/2002 8:48:04 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Is she still single?
19 posted on 05/03/2002 1:01:24 AM PDT by SpyderTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

"A long time ago I dated a 28-year-old man who told me the first time we went out that he wanted to have seven children. Subsequently, I was involved for many years with an already middle-aged man who also claimed to be eager for fatherhood. How many children have these now-gray gentlemen produced in a lifetime of strenuous heterosexuality? None. But because they are men, nobody's writing books about how they blew their lives, missed the brass ring, find life a downward spiral of serial girlfriends and work that's lost its savor."

I wonder how good of an example this actually is. Did they just not ever find the right female(s) to bear their children?

20 posted on 05/03/2002 1:03:10 AM PDT by SpyderTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson