She opens with discussing how she respects a woman's right to choose "all things at all times," she still finds women who don't want children to be "weird." Fine. That's her right, and many, many (most?) people in our society would agree with her. But then she says that "recent studies" (she provides no links, or study names, or methodology) find that childless women (specifically those childless by choice), are distrusted in the workplace, seen as cold, and less likely to get promoted. OK for one thing, she's just wrong. While most women still make less than men in equal jobs, the wage gap between childless women and men is much smaller than that between mothers and men; childless women make more money than mothers.
"Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without children, and they are paid $11,000 less, according to a study from Cornell University," says an ABC news article (which I found in one quick Google search). Why? Probably because women with children will be seen as splitting their time and attention, whereas women without children will be presumed to be more focused on the job. The assumption is, of course, bad for both: women without children are assumed to have no fulfilling life outside of work, and women with children are seen to be unable to prioritize or manage time. (Now, sure, women with children do have a whole lot of juggling to do--why don't we work on affordable daycare? Or let's battle assumptions that women (and not men) should do most of the staying home with sick kids, taking kids to doctors, and chaperoning field trips!)
So, we know that the woman who wrote this article is wrong in her facts, and just needs justification for why she "distrusts" women without children. Let's read on.
She says that many bosses see women without children as lacking "an essential humanity"... well fuck you. Oops, was that inhumane of me to say? OK. I don't want to have children. I also am not a huge fan of animals. Truth be told, I love kittens and puppies (though I've developed an allergy since going to college and now can't be around them much without careful attention and lots of hand washing, so it's usually easiest to avoid them all together), but I get really annoyed with them once they grow up. I find them very cute and cuddly, but once they don't fit in my palm anymore, they just aren't as fun. (See? I really shouldn't have children; I might hate them once they start walking!) But I don't believe this makes me inhumane. I'm sarcastic, and I have been told that I often say things in a tone that makes me come across as mean when I think I'm making a joke. But I'm also a good listener and I'm caring to the people that I love. It takes me a long time to really become close friends with someone, but once I do, you can tell me anything, I will tell you anything, and I'll do my best to be there when needed. I'm not the best friend anyone ever had, but I'm not the worst. I'm a human, with emotions and flaws, whether or not I have children.
She goes on to say:
"Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other. Or a high-flier working 20-hour days while still breast-feeding. Or the mother of a small brood taking on any job of such erratic hours that she cannot promise them when or even if she'll be home. But most jobs aren't like that - and most children don't stay babies for long."
So, because I work in a job with pretty flexible hours, that is not intensely demanding most days of the year, I should have children? I love my job's flexible hours for these reasons:
1. I mean, who doesn't love flexible hours?
2. Most times of the year, I can work my schedule around things like going to the gym, having a lunch with a friend or my boyfriend, going out of town, etc. As long we aren't busy or under deadline, as long as I know someone else will be at the office to grab the phone, my schedule doesn't have to be the same every day.
3. Most of my job is done on my computer; so if one day, I'm getting afternoon sleepiness or just sick of being in the same place, I can say, "Hey, I'm going to finish this up at home; I need a break." I don't do this often at all, but I know it's an option if I truly need it. Yes, it's a privilege, and one I don't want to give up if I don't have to.
So, yeah, my schedule (more so than many, at least) would allow for children. I mean, let's be honest, nobody really has all the time they need to raise children; but I probably do have more than the average woman. That does not mean, however, that I should feel obligated to have children. And I don't.
This was, to me, the most insulting part of the article:
"It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time."
Again, I will use myself as an example. Right now, I'm not a 100% full-time employee (yes, this attributes some to the flexible hours I was discussing, but not completely; just the other day, my boss told me he was going to run some errands, then finish working on the book at home; everyone in my office does this sometimes), so I don't work a full day every day. Usually I work about three "full-time" days a week and two "half-time" days. Yet, I still wake up about 7:00 every morning. Now, I know that many mothers out there wake up earlier than that, and I'm certainly not trying to compete or say I am awake just as long as they are. But I am pointing out that I am a person who gets up every morning, makes some sort of breakfast (sometimes it involves cooking, sometimes it involves pouring cereal into a bowl), makes coffee, gets on the computer to check e-mail and see what lies ahead of me for the day's work, exercises (some days), and more. My parents, when I was younger, did NOT get up to "cook a family breakfast" or to be "alert for hours." My sisters and I were constantly late to school and my mother late to work. I'm not saying this makes my mother a bad mother (she's pretty fucking awesome, actually); I'm just saying that some mothers sleep late, and some non-mothers don't. It's a personality thing, not an automatic "because I'm a parent" thing. And we all know that, even for mothers who are fantastic at time management and don't usually show up to work late, bosses tend to see mothers (at least before hiring them) as more likely to be late or miss days from work due to children.
I, also, have only shown up to work hungover once or twice. I was not late, my work performance was not affected; I simply was a little bit miserable those days (a fact of which my co-workers were unaware). And are we really saying that no mothers ever show up to work hungover? I seriously doubt it.
She also writes,
She also writes,
"It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.
They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet."
 |
| Screenshot from her article |
Her general assumptions about women are so insulting. Women as office gossipers. Women as working for the purpose of finding a man. Women as making money in order to buy frivolous items (you know, because all women have/want Carrie Bradshaw-esque shoe collections and obsessions).
I work because I have to. I enjoy my job, and I know that I want to continue working in publishing, though eventually at a feminist-geared publication/publishing house, but come on, at the end of the day, we all work because we have to get paid. If I didn't have to work, if I just had money raining down on me at all times, I would still "work"; I would read and write and blog and share new information with people and try to change a little (or a lot) of our society's misguided ideas, but no, I wouldn't choose a 9 to 5 office job in order to do that. And most of us wouldn't. I "genuinely enjoy some adult company," but I don't need my job to do that. I do need my job because I "have mouths to feed;" mine and my boyfriend's. (He contributes too, don't worry, but since we live together we depend on each other financially; I'm screwed if he doesn't come up with rent, and vice versa.)
I just find this writer's superior attitude to be so condescending (and there's so much more that I haven't touched on). Mothers can do no wrong. Women without children are weird, unnatural, immature and irresponsible. She assumes that all parents are good parents and good workers, and that all non-parents are youthful partiers who care very little about their jobs. Really, the way she talks about non-mothers, you would think she's talking about "The Plastics" from Mean Girls. And maybe she is.
But believe me, Carol Sarler, there are plenty of women out there who choose not to have children for their entire lives. They remain childless into their 40s, 50s, 60s, and on. And their lives can still be fulfilling, and meaningful, and responsibly led. I'm pretty sure Gloria Steinem would say she has had a fulfilling, meaningful life (one that is still going strong). Eudora Welty did pretty well.
And, Carol, until you start telling me that you distrust men who are childless by choice, I just can't buy anything you write.
No comments:
Post a Comment