Young, successful, well paid: are they killing feminism?

[-Serenity-]

A controversial article by an academic argues that a new breed of 'elite women' is creating rifts in female ranks and fundamentally changing society. Anushka Asthana and Denis Campbell report

 

Sunday March 26, 2006

The Observer

 

Chiara Cargnel wants to have it all: a high-flying career and a successful marriage. So far she is halfway there. At 26, she is an investment banker in London working over 70 hours a week and earning more than £80,000 a year. Cargnel, like many other young women, is excelling in a world many thought governed not by their rules, but by rules set and enforced by men.

 

For the first time in history these 'elite women' can succeed in any career they want. According to a remarkable thesis that has blown open the debate around feminism, sexism and the future role of women, a new generation of bright, rich professionals have broken through the glass ceiling and have nothing to fear from the men around them. They will be just as successful.

 

The thesis was expounded in a highly controversial article for Prospect magazine by Alison Wolf, a professor at Kings College London and author of Does Education Matter? She argues that the meteoric rise of this new generation of 'go-getting women' who want high-powered, well-paid jobs has dire consequences for society. Wolf says it has diverted the most talented away from the caring professions such as teaching, stopped them volunteering, is in danger of ending the notion of 'female altruism', has turned many women off having children - and has effectively killed off feminism.

 

'[it is] the death of the sisterhood,' Wolf writes. 'An end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than men.

 

'In the past, women of all classes shared lives centred on explicitly female concerns. Now it makes little sense to discuss women in general. The statistics are clear: among young, educated, full-time professionals, being female is no longer a drag on earnings or progress.'

 

The article argues that the most educated women will now earn as much as men over a lifetime if they have no children. Even with children, the gap will be small. The desire to be successful acts as a major disincentive to women starting a family, Wolf argues.

 

'Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing,' she writes. 'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal.

 

'If you give 100 per cent to the job - if you behave like a man - the fact that you are a woman will not stop you,' Wolf told The Observer

 

Wolf insisted her argument was not that the workplace revolution had been a 'terrible mistake' and admitted she had gained from it herself: 'I am not saying we should be driven back into the homes and not be allowed to work. I am not suggesting we reintroduce the marriage bar [which required female teachers and civil servants to stay single or resign in favour of male workers]. I am just saying there have been consequences.'

 

Wolf's views will ignite fierce debate. It is a topic that is discussed at breakfast and dinner tables, and in restaurants and pubs across the country. Many women face the difficult decision of how to strike a balance between pursuing ambitious careers and focusing on motherhood. In that setting, Wolf's two main arguments will be met both with empathy and anger.

 

She is wrong on one point, according to Katherine Rake, director of women's equality group the Fawcett Society. Rake argues that 'the sisterhood' is very much alive and rejects Wolf's thesis that women of all classes no longer share the same major life experiences. 'Women are not a homogeneous group, but we never have been,' said Rake. 'We are a diverse group, but we still share experiences.'

 

Rake dismissed as 'an unfair portrayal' the idea that feminism focused overly on getting women into employment. She argued: 'The most interesting and radical strands of feminism value a whole variety of roles. It is about working on a balance between men and women and valuing unpaid work such as looking after the children.' She said women did not have a true choice about whether to take the larger burden of childcare because the pay gap meant it was often more economical for the woman to do it. She highlighted the fact that part-time work was often not available in the professions chosen by 'elite women'.

 

Others argued that there was still a glass ceiling blocking the path of young professionals. Jenny Watson, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, accused Wolf of 'painting a rosier view than exists of the realities of women's lives' and ignoring the difficulties many women face when trying to resume their careers after a break to give birth.

 

'Wolf completely misses the point on several key issues,' said Watson. 'She does not reflect the fact that this whole debate about work and family is no longer only about women and these days involves, for example, fathers' increasing desire to be more involved at home. Women experience a thin veneer of equality, but that veneer often cracks once they take on a caring role.'

 

Watson said many women with children faced difficulties finding flexible work and often ended up with poor pay, reduced promotion prospects and a lack of senior posts available on a job-share basis. It was the archaic rules on parental leave, she argued, rather than some high-flying women's desire to have a successful career, that were responsible for the declining birth rate. More leave for new fathers could address the imbalance.

 

The decline in child birth rates is one of the 'grave consequences' of the rise of career-focused women that Wolf highlights. She points to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research that tracks the trend. But Julia Margo, co-author of the report, said that 'elite women' who wanted to have more children were forced not to because they would lose too much income. Margo said the pay gap would be closed only if women could have children early on and still maintain their income.

 

'[The present system] is deeply unfair for women,' she said. 'We will not close the pay gap until men take time out to look after children. Then employers will not think they cannot employ a woman in her late twenties or early thirties because they cannot afford maternity leave. As a society we have not caught up yet with the consequences of women in the labour market. Women manage by holding off one thing or another; they sacrifice children or they sacrifice their career.'

 

It is a decision that is already haunting Cargnel, an archetypal 'elite woman'. From a young age she knew she wanted to go far in her career and until recently had no desire for children - but that is changing. 'I want to have a child eventually, but I will postpone the decision until the hours become more manageable as I advance in my career. You can't work from 8.30am till 11pm and look after a child.'

 

She admitted that the ideal would be a husband in a more flexible job who would be prepared to take on above average responsibilities. 'But does such a man exist?' she said.

 

Finding and keeping a partner is difficult because of her long hours. She is seeing a man who lives 200 miles away and admits that makes life easier. 'It would not last if he lived here. What man in the same city is happy to see you four days a month, and then when he sees you, you are tired?'

 

It is a high price for success - Cargnel works six days a week and always faces being called in. Once she was called back from a holiday in Italy after just one day. Nevertheless, she finds time for charity and dismisses the idea that women like her fail to show their altruistic side by doing things like volunteering. Cargnel takes disadvantaged young people on week-long trips out of London.

 

Being an 'elite woman' was not about acting like a man, she said, but about being a 'more complete individual' who no longer worries about finding a partner with enough money to look after her. 'I can choose a partner on affinity and love rather than money,' she said. Brought up to believe her sex did not matter, she was no longer sure. 'I always thought that gender would not matter if I was good at what I did. But I wanted to be in the diplomatic service back home in Italy and I went to see them and a senior diplomatic officer said to me - "You are a woman, why don't you just marry a diplomat?" '

 

Cargnel said in principle she would do as well as any man if she stayed single and childless. But she said a woman was still expected to be the main carer, and if she had children she would have to work harder than a father to get ahead.

 

As such, she did believe society discriminated against elite women. 'There is a conception shared by women and men alike that you can be a good professional and have a career or a good woman and have a family. My ex-boyfriend had a mother who was educated but stayed at home and thought I was inappropriate because I wanted to travel the world and study at Cambridge.'

 

But men, she argued, were allowed to have careers and families. 'Women are given up to a year off in maternity leave and men are given two weeks - that is intrinsically discriminatory, and an assumption that women should stay at home. I believe it should say men and women can take the same leave, so it is a true choice that we face.'

 

Source

[Naden]

Well, as alarmist pieces go, this one is very impressive. Where to begin? The author contends that ‘the meteoric rise of this new generation of 'go-getting women' who want high-powered, well-paid jobs has dire consequences for society’ without really explaining why a small minority of women (and probably all professionals) will do that. She does say the following:

 

It has diverted the most talented away from the caring professions such as teaching

No explanation or proof that this is the case unless the author equates ambition with talent. She also offers no proof that these ‘high powered’ women would want to become teachers or would become exceptional teachers if they do become one. How do you describe teaching as a ‘caring’ profession? This must be built on the ludicrous myth that men enter teaching to teach subjects while women do so to nurture and raise children. Women do give birth and breastfeed their children but not all want to shove their heaving bossom in the faces of children sent to school to learn. Nurturing behaviour is limited and not exclusive to women. Men can be and are just as attentive and ‘caring’ of the young, old and infirm as women.

 

If anything, teaching is a profession in dire need of men as they represent less than 25% of the 3 million American teachers. I am convinced that men have a great deal to offer as teachers and a number of British parents hold similar views Source. They offer strong role models for boys and provide alternate discipline. Some have even suggested that there would be fewer boys diagnosed with ADHD if more men were elementary school teachers as the latter are more tolerant of activities that are play-based and do not involve sitting still for hours.

 

stopped them volunteering, is in danger of ending the notion of 'female altruism', has turned many women off having children - and has effectively killed off feminism.

Female altruism? :rolleyes: The last time I looked altruism was a human quality and not a ‘female’ quality.

 

How in the world has feminism suffered with the success of these women? I was under the impression that feminism was to give women equal access to education and employment. What is the story behind the 'death of sisterhood'?

Was there ever a time when women of all classes shared the same 'major life experiences'? Never mind that most women will work for a living and raise families and care for elderly parents and parents-in-law. Those are not shared life experiences? Or does sisterhood apply only when rights are lacking and most women share the burden of unpaid work? :rolleyes: Does she have the same concern about women who work long hours in low-paying jobs and give 100% or is she limited to pontificating about equally privileged women earning large sums of money?

 

'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal.

It sure does pay nowadays to say whatever that is seen as controversial and get your 15 minutes in the limelight. In this future envisioned by the author, do men (educated or otherwise) have any role in the care of the old and sick? Do they have a role in volunteering and giving back to the community? Well, of course they do! This author couldn’t be bothered to do some elementary research (or hire a lowly intern to do it). Of the elderly and infirm parents in the US taken care of by children, a little less than a third were cared for by a son. The remaining 70% were cared for by daughters who have families and careers. Many abandon their difficult and consuming career to care for their parents (New York Times, Nov.11/2005). Not to forget ‘altruism’, 25% of men and 34% of women did volunteer work last year (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The author writes from a British perspective but the stats are comparable Source. Despite longer work hours and busier lives, these figures show that women are still giving of themselves. No proof why that will be different in the future.

 

Wolf insisted her argument was not that the workplace revolution had been a 'terrible mistake' and admitted she had gained from it herself.........I am just saying there have been consequences.'

Ahhhh, the rise and fall of academic discourse. Her argument is a non-argument and her conclusion is that there are consequences to changing life/work dynamics. Women (AND men) of most walks of life are struggling with career and childcare. Nothing new is given and few of the issues that affect these families are addressed.

[bilan]

Originally posted by Amelia:

But men, she argued, were allowed to have careers and families. 'Women are given up to a year off in maternity leave and men are given two weeks - that is intrinsically discriminatory, and an assumption that women should stay at home. I believe it should say men and women can take the same leave, so it is a true choice that we face.'

 

Source

how can men and women have the same maternity leave,men do not get pregnant,have morning sickness and go through labor, women have fought so hard to have longer maternity leave. men are allowed to have both career and family because someone else is taking care of the family,bottom line is no matter how good the father is,he can never be as good as the mother,that's why most women choose family over career and just work to get by.

[J.Lee]

^But men,walaal, have either a wife or a girlfriend who has given birth and maybe, just maybe they might wish to help her out while she is on her maternity leave :confused:

 

I believe this whole article was motivated by jealousy! Notice the first word in the title of the Article hablo; I'm quite sure that is a word, which doesn't apply to the dear professor.

 

If you give 100 per cent to the job - if you behave like a man - the fact that you are a woman will not stop you

So being driven, ambitious, dedicated and sacrificing your personal desires for your professional aspirations is behaving like a man? If anybody is killing feminism it's women that hold beliefs similar to hers.

 

Naden wrote:

 

'An end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than men. Was there ever a time when women of all classes shared the same 'major life experiences'? Never mind that most women will work for a living and raise families and care for elderly parents and parents-in-law. Those are not shared life experiences? Or does sisterhood apply only when rights are lacking and most women share the burden of unpaid work?

Afkaada caano lagu shub maandhay.

[-Lily-]

Women have to decide what is truly feminism, those who advocate that women need to behave like men to get respect/status are the most unfeminist of all.

 

 

One, women do not become less alturistic just because they are career women.

 

Secondly, if you look in schools, there are still more women teachers than men,is she not a female prof? Similarly, more female nurses than men.

 

Thirdly, the fact is if you work in the 'city' and are SINGLE you are expected to do hours like 8 am to 9 pm, at least if you want to progress. That's why the first thing you sign is to opt out of a 48 hours working week.

 

Fourthly, women who work like the 'elite women' she is talking about want to be in a position of success before (and IF at all) they decide to have children. If they reach a certain senior level in their jobs they would have more flexebility of being their own boss. For example, the senior partner at my sisters Law firm worked non stop for 10 years, now she comes in 2 days a week and gets paid a ridicules amount. She also has 5 days to look after her two children.

 

Fifthly, having less children is not necesserily due to more women working. Life is expensive and the avarge family cannot afford to have more than two children. If you have noticed, at the risk of generalising, it's affluent families who tend to have 3-4 children.

 

 

This working & being mothers debate will never quiet end, soley because it is incredibly difficul t to strike a balance. There is now more literature and awreness on job-sharing senior posts. So it might just be a matter of time.

 

I'm still optimistic that you can still 'have it all'.

[makalajabti]

Blah blah, their arguments are weak. They just want to create some sensationalism, their article proves that some people can't stand successful women, men feel castrated and women jealous