|
the traditional duties of women, having primary responsibility for bearing and raising children, caring for the sick in the family, volunteering at school and in the community and caring for elderly family members with on the other side -- career.
The glass ceiling still exists because this problem has not been resolved and has not even been looked squarely in the eye.
I worked at home when my children were very small, took low paying secretarial-type jobs while my children were in school, and only when they went to university did I get my professional degree.
How did that work out? Not very well. I had the grades, ability and certainly the intelligence and wisdom to compete professionally, but I could not get a partner-track job because of my age.
Why? Because I did not fit into the economic structure of my profession. Law firms hire associates who at least theoretically have many productive years before them. That is because the law firms, even if technically organized as corporations, are partnerships in which the members hold ownership stakes. As the partners grow older and look to retirement, they continue to "work," that is, they continue to draw a partnership share of the earnings of the firm. Usually, though, as they age, they reduce the number of billable hours they work. Thus, older partners in a firm rely on young associates (who get salary and bonus but no share in partner profits) to put in the billable hours that produce revenue. Of course, the older partners lend their good will, their personal connections with clients and the value of their reputations and names on the firm letterhead -- and once in a while they appear at a trial or two.
Why didn't I go to law school when my children were young? I worked my way through (helping to provide for my family). Law school at night after an eight-hour day in an office is a grueling schedule at any age. Had I tried to do it when my children were younger, I would have been absent and unavailable during the crucial teenaged years when kids really need a parent with time to talk at almost every time of the day or night. My children benefited from having a traditional two-parent family. I do not question that. (although single parents can be just as great depending on how they arrange child care and use their time)
Clearly, Sarah Palin chose both career and children. I know women who manage both, but it is difficult. And it is not uncommon for the children to suffer or make mistakes they might have avoided had mom (or/and dad) been available more.
It is my understanding that conservatives counsel putting family first. OK. That is what I did. It did not work. No matter how hard you work, no matter how brilliant you are, if you put family over career, you may end up unemployed at a time when you would really love the challenge of work.
Liberals seem to have different approaches to this problem. I note that talented women in my daughters' generation have, in many instances, chosen to forgo marriage and family. Some of them find fulfillment in their professional lives and do not want or need children and a foamy. Some dream of a true partnership in which childrearing duties are shared. Still others look for a potential stay-at-home-daddy who likes to cook, and some laughingly advocate for the Sex and the City myth. The true partnership sounds the most appealing to me, but that is, as I understand it, not what conservatives propose.
Palin's plight certainly puts these issues on the table. I don't think she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from a McCain presidency, but I am grateful that these issues are coming to light.
The Scandinavian countries seem to have found ways to help women work and raise their children. Maybe we should look at what they are doing.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
