I thought the Belkin article is very interesting, and could definitely see both points of the "Opt Out" argument. Obviously the article generally refers to middle and middle class white women, though it could refer to any race of women that are middle to upper middle class.
I think on one side of the argument, one could make find it admirable that women may want to spend more time with their family. I do believe that family is very important, and I believe many women (as well as men) may sometimes put too much emphasis on trying to climb up in their career than taking care and having good relationships with their families. Many women feel its much more largely their responsibility to be the one who takes care of the home and relationships. It may also be a good testament to the feminist movement that more women now feel they have the option of either working to get to the top or not.
On the other hand, many marriages end up in divorce, and many for reasons other than the woman having a career. In today's society, it cannot be established that a marriage will last; therefore quitting a career and living off of your husband's paycheck may put you in jeopardy if you choose to sacrifice a career for more family life. Also, more women will never be fully represented in high offices for change in how society views women in the workplace and the types of jobs they do, if many women choose not to persue their careers and "opt out."
My mother stayed at home with me when I was younger. I do appreciate the fact that she did this for me, and since I think I turned out pretty well, I would do the same for my children. I just do not feel I would be comfortable leaving my children with another person if I can stay at home with them and be okay financially. This is not to say that people who leave their children in daycare or with a babysitter/tutor for the day are bad, but I do not believe it is what I would choose.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)