Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

Even if being a feminist became the rule rather than the exception amongst people, there will still be men who fear and hate women, and there will still be women who like those sorts of men. And probably more innocuously, there will always be women for whom a relationship is more fulfilling (for whatever reason) than a career. I don't happen to be one of them, but they're out there.

Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

Even if being a feminist became the rule rather than the exception amongst people, there will still be men who fear and hate women, and there will still be women who like those sorts of men. And probably more innocuously, there will always be women for whom a relationship is more fulfilling (for whatever reason) than a career. I don't happen to be one of them, but they're out there.

What I hate the most about stories like this is that they miss what, to me, is the most important point: that we've created--culturally and institutionally--a society in which both women and men are forced to choose between a career or relationships a lot of the time. My dad, for example, turned down promotions because he didn't want the sort of job where he never saw his family.

I think relationships, sexual or otherwise, are an important part of our lives as human beings, and I think we should be working toward a world in which we aren't forced to make hard decisions between work and relational connections.

"I think relationships, sexual or otherwise, are an important part of our lives as human beings, and I think we should be working toward a world in which we aren't forced to make hard decisions between work and relational connections."

Hear, hear, Anna! A recent 60 Minutes piece moaned and groaned about how the younger generation puts other things ahead of work, that corporations can no longer expect their employees (at least, their white collar workers) to live and breathe their job without a "work/life balance". Personally, I think this is a wonderful development. (I know, shocker, given my screen name...LOL)

Alan

Stories like this one and its sister topic, Women Who Opt Out, always leave me feeling ambivalent. On the one hand, it's sad to me that so many women would go the ultra-traditional route and choose family/romance over career. On the other hand, if they're genuinely happier with the decision they've made, who am I to judge? I can't ask these people to sacrifice their personal happiness on the altar of feminism.

On a different level, what makes me uncomfortable is, first of all, the notion that people will always have to pick only one-- annajcook is right, it shouldn't have to be that way. And the fact that a woman daring to choose career over family is newsworthy to begin with. It never occurs to me that my decision (career over family) might be considered radical or strange until I read a story like this.

Honestly, I consider all of my close interpersonal relationships to be more important than my career. Maybe it's just the point in my life where I stand right now (I'm about to graduate with a WS degree and have absolutely no idea what I want to do with my life). My friends and family provide much more fulfillment and happiness than my current job, and right now I can't imagine finding a job that is more important that any of them.

I don't think feminism necessarily dictates that you have a career over family. Take me and my sister. I have four children, and working all the time would be a real pain. I worked when the first two were little, have a college degree, and now me and my husband share equally the work in the house, plus we both invest our savings in various ways so neither one of us has to work full time. I can pursue my hobbies, freelance when or if I want, and as long as we budget, we have a life that is awesome.

My sister put career first, works in a very corporate environment, her job is high paying, not married, no kids, and she in her mid-thirties. She is happy and I am happy, but that could change for either of us.

Ultimately, networking and having friends is essential whether you are at home or in an office. Relationships are not only about marriages, but extended family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, ect.

I don't think feminism necessarily dictates that you have a career over family. Take me and my sister. I have four children, and working all the time would be a real pain. I worked when the first two were little, have a college degree, and now me and my husband share equally the work in the house, plus we both invest our savings in various ways so neither one of us has to work full time. I can pursue my hobbies, freelance when or if I want, and as long as we budget, we have a life that is awesome.

My sister put career first, works in a very corporate environment, her job is high paying, not married, no kids, and she in her mid-thirties. She is happy and I am happy, but that could change for either of us.

Ultimately, networking and having friends is essential whether you are at home or in an office. Relationships are not only about marriages, but extended family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, ect.

It is assumed men choose career over relationships, setting up one of the most fuxored relationship power dynamics of all time.

I don't think this is universally true. It's probably generally expected for high-powered men with elite educations in certain fields. But lots of people people don't work in jobs like that. A lot of the men I know who are teachers, tech support, mid-level gov't employees, loan officers, and so on prioritize their jobs and work hard during the day because they know it's essential for survival. But they actually live for their kids, their church, their softball team, etc.--relationships outside their jobs. My sense is that this is more healthy for both sexes. Yes, there are a few high-powered careers that really do require total devotion, but right now far too many bosses expect it, and far too many people have bought into a value system that success means having a job you live for.

"I don't think feminism necessarily dictates that you have a career over family."

Depends on which branch of feminism you mean. Linda Hirshman certainly seems to dictate as much:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html

annajcook is so, so right. I don't think it has anything to do with being "feminist" enough- I can believe in equal rights for women and support equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity and still be happy putting the career track on the back burner for my family. The truth of the matter is "having it all" is pretty much impossible and finding a balance that works for you isn't a statement against feminism.

What is funny, too is that when the MRA types rail about how feminism put us in this spot, how the 50s were so great because men supported women and were working for the family, what they fail to notice how RARE it is for any PERSON today (man or woman) to have a family of four on one income and be home by 5 for the martini and dinner. It isn't feminists who took away working people's time and benefits- it's deregulated companies that figured out they can make a buck by working people to death and not paying for their health care. I like this site: http://timeday.org/

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?



Neither. Is it so unbelievable that women could find relationships with other human beings more fulfilling than a job? Not everyone is able to find work in a career that they love and find fulfilling you know. We are so obsessively work- focused in this country now, to the detriment of our health and our social/familial bonds, and I think it's sad. Personally I gave up all hopes of careers that would require long hours, not because I'm anti-feminist but because I know I would be miserable. I'm happiest when I'm living a well-rounded life with loving relationships.

I agree with annajcook -- it certainly does not need to be "either/or."

I also disagree with what I think is the implied premise -- that men choose career over relationship and that somehow this is good/the default position/something to be aspired to. First, I don't know that this is exactly true anymore among young men. Second, if men have traditionally been assigned the role of "breadwinner," putting career first, that's not necessarily a good thing. That, too, is an unfortunate gender constrict that I know a lot of young men would be happy to break free from. In the old days, men were not really free to be stay-at-home dads. Even if their wives/girlfriends tolerated it (and few did), society treated such men as oddballs. Young men were not free to follow their girlfriends to a new city when she got a good job. Now I know guys who've done just that.

I would suspect that most young men have no interest in preserving gender stereotypes that require them to be the breadwinner, or to be solely financially responsible for a family -- just because they were born male.

With that said, there seems little reason for either men or women not to have both, and neither one should be deemed of lesser value -- it all depends on what the person wants to do.

"Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists?"

This is pretty lol. Why would you insist that everyone should want to advance their career? I'm a man who is not terribly ambitious about my own career, and I work 40 hours a week. If I could make a bunch more money and prestige working 60 hours a week, I wouldn't do it, and that's because I don't want to lose the time I currently have with my girlfriend, friends, and family. If a woman wants to take this idea the whole way, and not work at all, and raise a family, what is the problem? How is this anti-feminist?

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

I guess I don't really understand this last part. Is this suggesting that if a woman chooses her relationships over her career, she is doing this because she is an evil anti-feminist, or because of feminism's bad PR?

Curiosuly, I was just having a conversation about this last night, first with a coworker whose grant just ran out, leaving her jobless, and then with my boyfriend. My friend has grand career aspirations - another job, a set forward in our social work license, eventually private practice, and the whole time she was describing that, I was thinking, wow, I have no really career goals. I would like to continue doing the kind of work I'm doing, get a paycheck and insurance, and go home to my family, to my nieces, and my boyfriend.

I work in a social work, 8-5 job right now, but I harbor no allusions about what truly makes me happy. I like my job; this is much better than crunching numbers or other professions, but there are only 24 hours in a day, and at the end of them, I would like to think that I have spent more time with my family, my friends, and my dogs than with my clients.

Please don't misunderstand - I love my job. Nothing is more lovely than knowing, at 5PM, that I have worked with people who need my help and my education. But when I retire (at my income bracket, at about 70), I don't expect Johnny McChronicIllness to sit with me and drink tea, or have my grandbabies, or go with me to the movies, or help me plant a vegetable garden.

I want a job that pays for my (very simple and not fancy) life, not a job that is my life. And if that means my career suffers, well...I'm okay with that.

I want a job that pays for my (very simple and not fancy) life, not a job that is my life.

We are so obsessively work- focused in this country now, to the detriment of our health and our social/familial bonds, and I think it's sad. . . I'm happiest when I'm living a well-rounded life with loving relationships.

Amen. I would add this that I also hope to (and am working toward) a job that is aligned with my values. Thankfully, I have the luxury and resources to have that be a consideration--lots of people who work all their lives don't! (Yet another aspect of work these stories consistently fail to acknowledge).

If anyone's interested, check out: Un-jobbing: The Adult Liberation Handbook, by Michael Fogler. I don't take every word of his advice literally, but when I first read the book in college, it really helped me think about the place I wanted a paying job to have in my life.

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

I'm a SAHM, which I think definitely qualifies me for putting relationships over career. But I still consider myself a feminist, and I definitely wasn't swayed by feminism's bad PR. I'm just, like most people, doing what I think is best for my family. Certainly, it's not a decision I made in a vacuum, and in a perfect world, maybe it's not the choice I would have made, but if you can admit that women compromise by wearing lipstick and heels, maybe you can admit that perfectly good feminists compromise by staying home a few years.

Of course, it helps my decision that I never really had a career. Just a job.

I consider feminism to be a hugely important part of who I am. This is why I'm in a relationship with a man who's also a feminist, and with whom I can have challenging, exciting, affirming conversations about issues I/we confront. An awareness of gender roles and power dynamics informs our relationship. Our relationship is emotionally and intellectually stimulating and important.

If I left some ho-hum job so that I could live closer to this person, is that anti-feminist? Of course not. Each woman makes her own decisions based on what feels right.

If I don't want children or a family and I have a career, does that mean I've "chosen" career over family. My decision not have kids or get married has nothing to do with my "decision" to have a career.

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

Goodness. Neither.

I keep typing out an explanation why, but then deleting it and wondering why I feel like I have to justify myself. If I want to stay home rather than going along with today's society's emphasis on more money all the time... why does that make me an evil anti-feminist?

I thought it just made me a hippie.

One thing I notice about the responses here are that most are about fulfillment, which is awesome, but not all women make choices from such self-aware places. I stayed home for years out of fear that I couldn't make it on my own. I knew it wasn't fulfilling, it was killing me with depression, but I had a son and I no safety net and the ex wasn't a bad guy at all, he's great, just not for me. I wonder how much easier it is to make that sort of polar decision when you have the luxury of that decision. I wonder also, isn't there a class issue lurking in here? Here in LA, lots of women don't have the choice of career or stay at home, they HAVE to do both. Which I'm pretty sure another commentor touched on above.

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

Meh. I think romantic and sexual relationships are a basic human need--if you force people into an either/or situation when it comes to those relationships and their careers, there will always be some people who choose one, and some the other, because they're both vital.

Now, my mother was a SAHM for sixteen years, and during those years drummed it into my head that depending on someone else for money was not what she wanted for me, and the reasons became pretty clear when my father left after those sixteen years, taking the money with him. And when I'm in my right mind, I love my work, so I wouldn't leave my career even if I won the lottery.

I agree with all. I don't think any survey that asks women to choose like that can be considered accurate.
And I agree, generally, what do career and family have to do with each other? Aside from the more stressful careers I suppose. If a woman feels like she wants to be a mother she likely will but there's nothing wrong (or too new) with putting it for a career. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, I'm glad she has a lot of career options nowadays.

"I would suspect that most young men have no interest in preserving gender stereotypes that require them to be the breadwinner, or to be solely financially responsible for a family -- just because they were born male."

Agreed! My dad really wishes my mom worked full-time. In a different world I could see my boyfriend quitting school, starting a family early and taking on the traditional woman role while I work towards a career I love but I want him to have the option of a career at least.

And it unfortunately seems like stay-at-home moms are looked down on or something. I think we need an emphasis on what makes people happiest. My cousin is a SAHM and she and her nine-month old (who barely cries) have already driven to Florida and New Brunswick with friends while her husband works. It sounds great.

It's a silly survey and silly reporting. Quick - which is more important - food, shelter or books? It's contextual. But even ignoring the methodological problems and probably large margin of error, there's nothing new about many college students being career oriented.

A more interesting question might whether the two sexes perceived it possible to achieve or combine _both_ social and professional "goals," or the extent to which their self described priorities mesh with their actions over time.

I agree that it's interesting that CNN considers it newsworthy that women are increasingly choosing career over romance, but I am inclined to wonder if it's a way of saying, "Hey, Ladies, you got your place in the workplace. Please stop with the feminist junk" from our good old conservative/anti-feminist friends. I, however, do not agree that women choosing romance is necessarily anti-feminist as long as it's what they want and not what they feel expected to do. Isn't feminism about having choices? All the same choices as men at that? Wouldn't we congratulate a man who chose a relationship over a job or stayed at home with the children? Isn't part of feminism's goals to achieve that type of destruction of gender roles? Further, I agree that people (men and women alike) shouldn't have to choose between the two.

A recent 60 Minutes piece moaned and groaned about how the younger generation puts other things ahead of work, that corporations can no longer expect their employees (at least, their white collar workers) to live and breathe their job without a "work/life balance". Personally, I think this is a wonderful development.

I totally agree. The capitalist society we live in today is dependent on people being willing to turn themselves into a commodity. Work however much you have to to be able to afford a huge house, nice car and the latest, greatest widget (even though you'll have to work such long hours that you will never actually enjoy these things). I'm glad the younger generation is seeing the value of life beyond money and possessions and that the corporate media is scared enough by this phenomenon that it feels the need to publicly bitch about it.

I keep typing out an explanation why, but then deleting it and wondering why I feel like I have to justify myself. If I want to stay home rather than going along with today's society's emphasis on more money all the time... why does that make me an evil anti-feminist?

I thought it just made me a hippie.

I think that the fact that I want my family to internally provide childcare and grow as much of our own food as I can makes me an anti-capitalist (sort of) and a hippie, not an anti-feminist. But the fact that it's me who stays home, and not my husband, and the fact that his staying home was never really an option, is the part that comes as much from external forces as internal, and where the potential anti-feminism lies.

I also think that it's not people like me who are just trying to do the best for my family and leaving crappy jobs where it would have been impossible to pump enough to keep breastfeeding that Samhita is talking about. I think it's the flippant college kids in previous NYT articles talking about staying home for a few years and then getting back into their high-powered careers and not realizing that has consequences.

while i think folks are right-on that this capitalist shitstem provides us with few alternatives and living to work is not really living at all (unless your work is, say, being a party promoter or something, but then you might be really spun out)...

i also think there's a point to sami's post that being glossed over.

seen, the group of people on this blog is quite selective. i would assume that many women choosing relationships over career are not doing so out of a post-communist perspective on their own exploitation, but rather out of a harking back to "simpler" times, popular illusions about the different biological "destinies" of men and women, continued obstacles to career advancement for women and other pressures.

while i think it's much more powerful to work on personal relationships than professional advancement, i also think it's important to recognize that not everyone makes their decisions for the same reason people on this site do.

peace and blessings,
puck

Let's not forget about those career women who forgo family not because they feel it's a threat to their careers but just because they don't want kids or don't want to be married. Just because they don't. I wonder if that slice of the demographic is getting lumped in with the career women they cite.

I think the focus of the article is skewed. The original study wasn't an either/or question:

Researchers asked 237 undergraduates to rate the importance of goals such as financial success, career, education and contribution to society, as well as goals such as romantic relationships, marriage, children and friendship.

While 51 percent of the women prioritized romantic relationships over achievement goals, more than 61 percent of men did the same.

If you prioritize career above family when you're 21 and studying hard in college, it hardly means that you've eliminated the possibility of family from your future. By the same token, if you prioritize relationships over financial success, it might have more to do with being idealistic and in love than with any anti-feminist tendencies.

Priorities - for both men and women - shift and adjust throughout life. Sometimes you sacrifice career for family, and sometimes you do the opposite. If you're really lucky, you have it all, but probably never at the same time.

The hoopla around studies like these is just media manipulation that says more about our desires for black-and-white easy answers to life than about the real world.

Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?

For sure this is a class issue-- it's as though our only choices are fulfillment through family or a fulfilling career. The vast majority of women have no choice but to work, and do so in a job, not a career. It's only a tiny minority of upper- and upper-middle-class women who have exciting, fulfilling careers-- the rest of us work 9 to 5 in jobs that pay too little, are often humiliating and back-breaking, watch our few remaining unions get busted and see less and less reward for more and more work. If that's what your job is like, staying home with your family looks pretty damn good.

It's not feminism's problem-- it's capitalism's. And those of us working-class women who want to have a family and attempt a fulfilling career get caught in the middle.

I'm rather confused by the conflation of 'valuing relationships' with 'leaving the workforce to be a SAHM' in both the article and some comments about it. There are other ways of valuing relationships (and other relationships to value), and in fact one of the things I value most about the workforce is the relationships I form.

As someone said above, any survey that asks people to choose between the options as if they're mutually exclusive is fundamentally flawed. If/when I have children, I fully expect to continue to work full-time through their infancy and childhood (apart from the 3 months paid leave I'm entitled to in NZ). This survey and some of these comments seem to suggest that means I value my career more highly than my relationships. I do not. My relationships with others, on both an individual and societal level, define me to a greater extent than the specific work I do. That doesn't mean I'm going to chuck in my career at any point. It's far too chicken-or-egg-ish to separate relationship and career like that. My career is largely fulfilling because of the web of relationships I build through it, and I view my relationships through a lens informed by my career. There are only rare occasions in life when it comes down to a choice between one or the other.

So very well put, Downside-up.

Women are latching onto careers just as men have always been socially required to do. Great, if that is their choice. Neither men nor women should feel compelled to take career over relationships or vice versa.

I suspect this post is driven by the sense that women no longer "need" men because they are no longer financially dependent on men. I can attest that this is fine with me and probably with most young men. Men don't "need" women, either. Men and women can hire someone to give them a baby, if that is their desire, and someday babies will be produced outside the womb.

But the fact is, most men and women still desire to be with one another in committed relationships and it is silly to pretend that this desire is not important, or that "career" SHOULD trump this desire, merely because women are now financially independent.

Stories like this annoy me. It's just reporting "studies" for the sake of making waves.
It fuels the "fight" between women who choose to work or choose to stay home with thier children.

I thought the whole point of feminism was to give women the right TO CHOOSE what's right for them.

"Furthermore, many women still prefer to be in relationships as opposed to advancing in their careers. More than I would like to admit. Are they evil anti-feminists? Or is this from feminism's bad PR over the last few years?"

Or are they happier with the jobs they already have than with being single?

For example, suppose a 35-year-old middle manager feels she has just the right amount of challenge at work and doesn't feel comfortable with her virginity.

Is she
a) an evil anti-feminist? b) deluded by the anti-feminist hype?
c) a feminist who's straight, bi, or lesbian instead of asexual?

"Now, my mother was a SAHM for sixteen years, and during those years drummed it into my head that depending on someone else for money was not what she wanted for me, and the reasons became pretty clear when my father left after those sixteen years, taking the money with him."

Exactly! Wanting women to have lots of trades and professions available *doesn't* mean every woman should put career above all else.

"It's only a tiny minority of upper- and upper-middle-class women who have exciting, fulfilling careers-- the rest of us work 9 to 5 in jobs that pay too little, are often humiliating and back-breaking, watch our few remaining unions get busted and see less and less reward for more and more work. If that's what your job is like, staying home with your family looks pretty damn good."

I got the impression that it's even *worse*, with the stay-at-home alternative to those awful jobs only looking pretty damn good until the man and/or the welfare runs out.

I got the impression that it's even *worse*, with the stay-at-home alternative to those awful jobs only looking pretty damn good until the man and/or the welfare runs out.

I have trouble with the wrist-slapping tone of some people, like Leslie Bennetts, who criticize women for not pursuing careers. Clearly, all of us--women and men--need to be aware of financial realities and vulnerabilities. But I also think it's a valid choice (if you're in a position to make it) for families to split the responsibilities of wage-earning in a way that makes family life work for them.

I find the everyone-must-work-for-a-wage emphasis a little troubling because it reinforces a very individualistic culture, in which we are discouraged from setting up communal economic relationships. I know we should go into those relationships with open eyes, but that education doesn't have to involve shaming men or women who are not part of the wage-earning workforce because they are part of relational networks that make that possible.

Instead, I think we should be focusing on dismantling the systemic prejudice against people who take "time out" from wage-work to take on other important work (like care for family members), and creating a word where people can set up more flexible arrangements without fear of financial insecurity if those arrangements change.

"I find the everyone-must-work-for-a-wage emphasis a little troubling because it reinforces a very individualistic culture, in which we are discouraged from setting up communal economic relationships."

Likewise, I find the noone-must-work-for-a-wage emphasis a little troubling too because it dismisses the way some women and girls out there are hurt in their communal economic relationships (for example, depending on an HIV+ husband who won't take "no," "stop cheating," and/or "at least use a condom" for an answer).

It's better to avoid *both* extremes and recognize that not everyone has the same resources and supports in the first place when choosing which of her opportunities to use.