Main image
20th January
2010
written by Laura Shunk

Oh, NPR, you’re validating all of my hopes and dreams: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122612096

I’m no hairy-armpitted militant feminist screaming for equality now, but this article makes my modest bosom swell with pride, mostly because it’s reflective of a trend I’ve been aware of since entering the working world. Gone are the days of frumpy power suits, the she-male, and sworn vow never to have children in the ranks of successful women. In fact, if anything, I’ve noticed that being a woman gives a distinct interview advantage in more male-dominated industries. Subtle as it was, there was certainly a desire to recruit highly ambitious females into the ranks of financial firms, if only because it looks good to investors to have women in management positions. Suddenly, companies are offering family benefits like daycare and maternity/paternity leave as if to scream, “WE DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR HORMONES BUT WE ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO MULTI-TASK! HAVE A CHILD! HAVE AN ARMY OF THEM! BUT STAY WITH OUR COMPANY INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COMPETITION BECAUSE WE NEED WOMEN HERE!” Whatever the motivation for this shift, I say, thanks, don’t mind if I do.

I’ve oft quipped that I’m going to marry my first husband for his money (okay, gentle readers, that’s a JOKE…. I’m not as heartless as my last entry apparently suggests). In reality, though, I’ve got a strong personality and a problem with being the submissive member of any relationship. What’s more likely is what I told my grandma when she told me I could always learn to love a rich man: nah, I’ll just make my own fortune. If I’m really honest, when I fantasize vaguely about a future marriage, I get immense joy from picturing a relationship where I very much hold my own as an equal or greater contributor to our assets rather than a shoe-fetish-motivated drain on the bank account. And here’s the thing: I have no doubt about what my future holds.

What I really like about this article is that it’s proof of the critical juncture at which we find ourselves in the history of women’s rights: for women, our limitations are now mostly self-imposed.

Okay, I can feel a certain type of feminist friend squirming at those words. After all, the number of men in leadership positions still outnumbers the number of women. Fine. But I’d venture a guess that that’s not because organizations are actively keeping women down.

The limitation comes from choices we all have to make. What’s our main motivation? What do we want? And what makes us happy? If it’s a high-powered career in business, then that will come first, and we’ll find our road not easy, because few paths to meaningful goals are ever totally easy, but mostly unblocked from a gender perspective. But if it’s raising a family, or making a difference in our communities, or writing a book, then we’ll pursue those ends instead of the business career, and, remarkably (I know), NOT end up as a high-powered business leader. As women, we’re good multi-taskers, but we can’t have it all at once. Even without sleep, we can’t be full-time moms, award winning authors, and high-powered executives all at the same time. Guess what?  Men can’t do all of those things at once either.  And guess what else?  They aren’t wrapped up in trying.

What we have is a choice to define what it is that we want, and then do what we need to do to get it. It’s a choice that all of us, women and men, should consciously make. And when we make that choice, we should remember what Mae West said: Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels. Women can do everything that men can, and they can do it with their own style.

The TRULY exciting thing about this shift is that gender roles within the household are grayer: the rise of the sugar mama shows that the choice to have a family no longer relies on a woman sacrificing her career if it’s not what she wants; there are plenty of men out there willing to rise to the family-rearing challenge. This is bound to terrify some women’s liberators: our last excuse for not achieving our goals is on the outs. But for those of us confident in our talents and human abilities, it presents an unlimited wealth of choice from which to craft our ideal life.

The best way to break through the glass ceiling is to not acknowledge its existence, choosing to actively pursue goals rather than let fate take over. Time to pull a Henry David Thoreau and go confidently in the direction of our dreams. No excuses, play like a champion.

4 Comments

  1. 21/01/2010

    I am exactly the type of feminist friend [even with hairy armpits to boot!] who squirms at this post. And now I’m about to shamelessly promote my own feminist blog by linking to it!

    Laura, of course I respect a noble attempt on the part of any woman (or man, for that matter) to take ownership of all of the commitments that pull their lives in competing directions. But the pressures of child-rearing still fall predominantly to women; salaries disproportionately favor men (http://www.theladyfinger.com/2009/03/in-case-you-were-wondering-whether.html); and, as Naomi posted on The Lady Finger this week in regard the same study discussed on NPR (http://www.theladyfinger.com/2010/01/oh-perils-of-female-success.html), many men don’t want to date women who earn more money than them, a point for which I have plenty of anecdotal support, too. There is an increasing number of stay-at-home dads due to the recession (http://www.theladyfinger.com/2009/09/stay-at-home-dads-on-rise.html), but this trend is likely to change if the economy turns around.

    I’d love to live in a post-sexist (or generally post-oppressive) world but I see real, systemic barriers to success for many women. While plenty of women maybe do need to simply try harder, there’s no level playing field. I believe it’s easier for men to coast through professional success while women are subjected to greater scrutiny to prove themselves.

  2. Silly
    23/01/2010

    b*tches. L0v3 the Suga M4M4.

  3. 24/01/2010

    I’m a feminist and a man who hopes someday to be in a position to stay home with his kids. I’m probably not really representative of the mass of potential stay-at-home dads, but I hope I presage a sea-change in our social construction of gender with respect to child care. I would say that the degree to which this is a “man-cession” is also the degree to which men especially dominate old, calcified industries that the recession hits especially hard. Likely the continued erosion of male economic predominance will lead to a fracturing of the old gender constructions, but I think the linkages are probably so heavily mediated by non-economic factors that progress in a freer direction will remain fitful.

  4. Adrienne
    02/02/2010

    1) “for [white, cisgendered, wealthy, English-speaking, conventionally pretty, young, currently abled] women, our limitations are now mostly self-imposed”

    Okay, I might agree with that.

    2) “This is bound to terrify some women’s liberators: our last excuse for not achieving our goals is on the outs.”

    I resent the implication that “women’s liberators” (am I right to assume you mean those angry, hairy feminists again?) somehow enjoy being oppressed, that we construct this fictional problem to… give ourselves something to do? Wallow in victimhood? Because one of the favorite pastimes of women is sitting around and finding stuff to complain about, right? Let’s just be more like men and all our problems will fade away, is that it?

    I’m all for girl-power (which this post seems to boil down to) but there are ways to promote it that aren’t misogynist and anti-feminist.

    3) “But for those of us confident in our talents and human abilities [and lucky enough to have been born into a position of privilege], it presents an unlimited wealth of choice from which to craft our ideal life.”

    Yes, privileged people (even female ones) do have a lot of opportunities these days.

Leave a Reply