« The Opt-Out Revolution | Main | The Accidental Techie »

October 27, 2003

Re-imagining Our Lives

mary_cassatt_la_toilette.jpgCaterina has done a wonderful post below about knowing early on that she wanted to be a writer, reading books about women writers and getting the fairly well-informed opinion that being a woman writer and having kids was a tough act to pull off. I agree completely, but ironically, just as she read a book about being a woman writer in her youth which suggested being childless was the best path to follow, I read a book in my youth about how many successful women writers had one child! Colette, the French writer comes to mind as one of their examples. This book did have an influence on my life.

For this reason and many others, I've always been so glad I did have a son and I would say he has probably improved my writing ten fold, although as Caterina reasonably discusses, having a child has probably hindered my writing career in many ways too. There's no point in comparing one way to the other. I make no judgements. I know what worked for me. I would be very sorry not to have become a parent, but I really don't believe that's the best path for all people (men or women).

But when I saw the cover the of The New York Times Magazine yesterday, I bristled. I had read a very interesting book called The Price of Motherhood which argued the idea that women "choose" to be worker bees or at home mother bees or completely exhausted worker/home non-stop drones is a wrong-headed way to look at the situation. They argue that women still don't have a lot of choices -- but rather are forced to choose from a set of not-so-great options and, as women have always been good at, make the best of a bad situation. I still haven't read the Times piece, but from Caterina's description I might like it better than I first imagined.

Are men really forced to choose between parenting over work? Of course not. Men at work with kids are often seen in a better light -- more serious, more mature -- than men without kids. There are still societal pressures at work that make him the "loving dad" when he rolls out of the office at 3PM to catch his son's little league game and she's the "work shirker" if she pulls out of the office at 3PM to take care of a sick kid with an earache. There is still a dreadful double standard which we all reinforce.

And all of us should be using technology -- DUH -- to be both efficient workers and excellent parents. That's the thing that gets me completely crazy. If we can use technology to do anything -- isn't this a reasonable aim? I remember the launch of a new line of products a few years back, that were essentially appliances with embedded monitors -- if you were in the kitchen you could have a monitor in your refrigerator or microwave to check your email, get on the Net. These were laughed off the market. I didn't think they were funny. I thought they were smart. I want to buy and use any product that lets me be connected to the outside world and my kid at the same time.

Isn't it time to re-imagine our lives using technology as an infrastructure for balance, intelligence, connection and productivity?

Posted by Halley Suitt at 06:19 AM | Permalink

Comments

Are men really forced to choose between parenting over work? Of course not. ...depends what you consider to be the "choice". It's true that men don't typically have to quit work to be dads. But the amount of work that they're able to do seems to go down. That to me indicates that they're choosing between parenting and work each day. This study in Nature indicates that mail scientists (and criminals) who remain unmarried reach their productivity peak later than those who marry.

Makes sense, though. Raising kids takes time, and there are only so many hours in a week. People who spend all their time working are going to do more work per week/month/year than those who have to spend some time raising kids.

Posted by: Jefferson Provost at Oct 27, 2003 11:48:23 AM

"There are still societal pressures at work that make him the "loving dad" when he rolls out of the office at 3PM to catch his son's little league game"

Not so sure about dad being given the thumbs up for leavin at 3. Maybe pats from co-workers. Maybe pats from new parents or ones expecting. Maybe pats from co-workers competing for the next "big opening" in the corp.

I would say close to no pats from the upper levels. A man leaving to go "play dad" is seen as a good support guy, perhaps. Not the type that will take the company places. Well, unless you believe the junk you read in Fast Company.

But, maybe that depends on where you work. What industry. I know from dealing in corp take-overs that nice boys and girls get cut. Boys and girls that "take it for the team" stay and play.

Posted by: Jonathon at Oct 27, 2003 12:57:06 PM

Halley, your point about creating technologies which minimize the handicaps of simultaneously actively pursuing a career and being a committed & involved parent really made me prick up my ears. What an interesting challenge! And I don't even have or plan to have kids.

Tell me more about that. What kind of solutions are you thinking of? More parent-child oriented chat tools come to mind instantly, but I know there are lots more.

Posted by: Dinah at Oct 27, 2003 4:38:03 PM

I don't have anything to say on this thread, I just had to express how happy I am to find a blog on women and technology. Lately I have had to deal with so many men in technology that second guess me or give me a hard time about my work that I'm going nuts. Thank you so much! I will be a frequent reader and poster.

Posted by: Alison at Oct 27, 2003 5:20:16 PM

Hard for me to hear this discussion about making choices. I'm from the second wave of feminism 35 years ago--and it was the number #topic back then at all those wonderful consciousness raising groups--very cool. Thing is it shouldn't be a choice. And wouldn't be if women (like happily on this web site) redefine and redesign existing power structures to suit themselves. Maybe it was too hard in corporate America to fight the status quo and sadly more women ended up wanting to play on the men's teams rather than forming their own. But nothing will change unless women seize power on their own terms and make whatever they want theirs. This is why it is so important that women seize the tech world. Otherwise we are doomed to decade after decade decide between kids and work. When in truth you can have both if you make the world yours (corporate child care for instance is not a utopian concept. It should automatically go with the territory). Irony is writing is possibly one of the few areas where women have been successful on their own terms. Nothing like writing when the kids are at school. And I could name name hundreds of women writers who did just that. Me, I opted not to have children to write, a choice I don't regret in the least.

Posted by: odette de crecy at Oct 27, 2003 8:51:04 PM

Thanks for creating this blog!

It is so frustrating to have the work vs children dialogue framed only in terms of women. It is a man's issue too!

Alison: I have dealt with second guessing about one's abilities from other men in science-related fields. I have no problem being judged by my work product, but do some men have to play a daily intimidation game? It just goes beyond competition. I think you have to just ignore, as much as you can, the hostility. Focus on the work. Even in fields where men are in the minority, some of them are still this way, so the grass is not really greener on the other side...in my opinion. Anyway, I wish you well!

Posted by: treetops at Oct 27, 2003 9:35:21 PM

I grew up believing that feminism had changed the world, that I could do whatever I wanted and no one would judge me by my gender. I went off, got a physics degree, and now am a year away from my PhD in a traditionally male dominated field.

It's true, that a woman can work in the physical sciences now without feeling any organized gender discrimination. What's not true, is that to succeed, most of the women in my field either chose not to have kids or have a stay at home husband. While stay-at-home husbands are great, I really want to be involved in parenting. That means that academia is not a potential career option for me, because I've yet to see an example of a part-time prof, or even a 40 hour work week, for the first ten years of a career.

Academia may not be sexist, but it is anti-parenthood, and when statistics come out again and again that show that women are leaving the physical sciences after undergraduate degrees, I have to suspect that this is one part of the reason. After getting my PhD I'll be looking for opportunities in government research instead of universities, I've learned in the past few years that while research is for me, the system isn't.

Posted by: trish at Oct 28, 2003 11:51:28 AM