To the Editor:
Re "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood" (front page, Sept. 20):
I was shocked and dismayed by your article not because I do not value the immense importance of being a mother but because as a young woman living in a post-feminism world, I cannot comprehend the ultimate passivity with which some women of my generation have resigned themselves to maintaining the status quo.
I agree that in today's society it is not possible for a woman to "have it all" and be both an outstanding career woman and an outstanding mother. But this does not mean that as women we should be content and not try to promote change by pushing for more equal participation in child-rearing between men and women and for the creation of a more family-friendly workplace and schedule.
Just because women cannot "have it all" does not mean that we should stop demanding it.
Amy L. Breglio
Bryn Mawr, Pa., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
Bravo for highlighting the paradox of the highly educated stay-at-home mom.
Two decades ago at the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School, my female classmates and I believed that determination alone would enable us to balance work and family, and that any woman who could not manage this was deficient.
Motherhood by itself was not a valid aspiration.
Many of us have since discovered, after juggling high-powered careers and children, that just because it's possible does not mean that it's desirable.
I'm glad that young women today are being more realistic about the price of "having it all." I would only point out that once children are in school, their need for intense parental involvement actually increases rather than decreases.
Delegating diaper-changing and play group to a nanny was fine, but I am glad to be the one providing the daily moral, emotional and intellectual guidance that my pre-teen and teenage daughters require.
Perhaps my fancy degrees are even useful in these endeavors.
Erica Peresman
Birmingham, Mich., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
You report: "The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years."
This is no death knell for elite, leadership careers for women. Do the math, and you have 70 percent planning to continue working through motherhood.
How about this headline: "Majority of Women in Elite Colleges to Opt for Lifetime Careers Either Full Time or With a Short Pause for Children." That's exactly what my friends and I did (Princeton '73, the first class to admit women).
Robin Herman
Boston, Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
You say many women at the most elite colleges intend to "put aside their careers in favor of raising children." But why shouldn't the raising of children be considered a career as well?
Few would deny that being a stay-at-home parent is a terrifically demanding job, requiring unlimited "people skills" and a total commitment to a workweek that recognizes no concept of overtime, not to mention a paycheck.
The term "working mother" is a redundancy. No woman need feel any guilt for opting to fill her days with whichever activities give her the greatest joy and fulfillment.
David English
Somerville, Mass., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
The women at elite colleges who are planning a career path that includes time to be stay-at-home moms may be "turning realistic." But that reality does not reflect the whole picture.
Even Ivy League women don't have a real choice, as they may not find meaningful part-time work or may divorce. Middle- and low-income women have even fewer options to stay home with their children. Many men want to be more involved fathers but face pressure to be primary breadwinners.
American laws, workplace policies and our attitudes need to change so that men and women at all income levels can balance work and family.
Part-time workers should not face discrimination in wages and benefits, employees need more workplace flexibility to care for their families, and subsidies now available to low-income parents for day care should be equally available if those parents want to care for their own children.
Geoff Boehm
Yolanda Wu
New York, Sept. 20, 2005
The writers are co-founders of A Better Balance: The Work and Family Law Center.
To the Editor:
Good luck to the women at elite institutions who plan to work at presumably high-paying jobs, marry well-paid men and stop working after they have children. I am dismayed at how self-indulgent their plans appear to us 70's feminists who combined a job and motherhood.
I hope that they have a backup strategy: things do not always work out as planned. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Not every couple is able to conceive on schedule. Men sometimes lose their jobs in corporate restructurings.
Might these young women use their considerable talents and education to create some different options: starting businesses that offer flexible options for all employees; or campaigning for paid parental leave, high-quality early childhood education and universal health care?
Barbara Reisman
Montclair, N.J., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
I made the choice to stay home full time when my first child was born nearly six years ago.
After receiving a bachelor's degree in English, I worked for nine years before having a baby. Now, as my oldest son enters kindergarten, I find myself in a challenging position as I consider my options for returning to the work force.
Having spent my days changing diapers and keeping house, I have lost confidence in myself as a marketable employee. While I wouldn't have traded this precious time with my babies for a nicer car or more expendable income, I am faced with the realization that when it comes to career choice and salary rewards, I am not on a par with my women friends who chose to remain working while starting families.
Liz Scharf
Middlesex, Vt., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
As a 28-year-old former New Yorker with a successful career in marketing, I am constantly thinking about work-life balance as my husband and I prepare to try for our first baby.
His thriving career would allow me to stay home with few financial sacrifices. Still, I've fought hard to convince him that I can share the privilege of providing for our family so that he'll have the same freedom I do to pursue alternate career paths and a deep relationship with our children.
These young women who have their hearts set on dabbling in a job for a decade before raising families full time are about as realistic as Naugahyde - it's the 1950's all over again, with a twist.
They're locking today's men in the provider role just as securely as postwar women were locked into the homemaker role. Not fair then; not fair now.
Sarah Vincent
Tampa, Fla., Sept. 20, 2005
To the Editor:
Your article implies, but ultimately conceals, the class issue at the heart of your profile of Ivy League women planning to be stay-at-home mothers.
While mentioning that such women "are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity," the article doesn't acknowledge fully that class entitlement and privilege are the real driving forces behind this trend.
These young women, who don't question the status quo of women bearing primary responsibility for child-rearing, completely take their choice for granted in the matter: they can choose to stay home or work, or do both, because of their economic class, no doubt augmented by their elite education.
Unfortunately, for the majority of American women who must work and raise children, the status quo is not a choice but a heavy burden imposed by a society's leadership class that likes to pretend it is a matter of private decision.
Mariko Miki
Roswell, Ga., Sept. 21, 2005
To the Editor:
You write that the women you interviewed "are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers." This assumption is offensive.
As a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, I am proud of my public interest career in the legal aid field. I am equally proud of my wonderful husband, who works for our country as a civil servant.
But in light of the high cost of living in the Washington area, if I did not work, we would never eat at a restaurant or see a movie, let alone be able to afford to send our daughter to the music lessons or SAT prep courses that helped the women profiled in your article gain admission to their elite colleges.
I respect the decision of any mother to work or to stay home with her children. But if that choice is available only to women who marry partners at law firms or investment bankers, it is hardly relevant to the vast majority of Americans.
Julia Gordon
Silver Spring, Md., Sept. 21, 2005
To the Editor:
I'm glad that the things I declared when I was 19 about what I was going to do with my life didn't make front-page news.
Carolyn Gang Irving
New York, Sept. 20, 2005