April 12, 2002

1:13 PM

The Hidden Costs of Career SuccessSylvia Ann Hewlett's new book is a hot topic among the business school crowd. Is it possible for high-achieving women to balance career and family?

"high-achieving women are unlikely to get married after the age of 35. They are also unlikely to have a child after 39. Yet 89 percent of younger women believe they will be able to get pregnant into their 40s; many pin their hopes on new reproductive technology."
posted by vacapinta (28 comments total)

It's not just a cost of career success - every choice has a concomitant cost. The simple fact is, no one - man or woman - can have it all. No one gets it all. Every choice involved the sacrifice of all other possible options. You can have a successful career; you can have a fullfilling family life; but you are almost guaranteed to fail if you expect to have full measures of both.

That's hard to accept, especially when we are bombarded with messages that tell us we can have it all. But we can't. Make smart decisions based on good information. Do what you think is right for you. But don't kid yourself. Self-delusion is the quickest path to disappointment ever invented.
posted by UncleFes at 1:23 PM on April 12, 2002

i agree unclefes. plus, it's never too late to adopt. even in china, i think the cutoff is 45 yrs. for parents.
posted by centrs at 1:35 PM on April 12, 2002

No one gets it all?

By contrast, Hewlett's research reveals that high-achieving men continue to “have it all.” Of the men she surveyed, 79% report wanting children, and 75% have them. Indeed, the more successful the man, the more likely he is to have a spouse and children. The opposite holds true for women, particularly the highest-achieving women in Hewlett's survey: At age 40, 49% of these ultra-achievers are childless, while 19% of their male peers are.

Maybe not, but men certainly get a lot more of both worlds than women do.
posted by jennak at 1:41 PM on April 12, 2002

We have children because (a) we have wives/girlfriends who bear, birth and care for them, (b) we spend far less time with them then those women, because (c) we are devoting time to our careers so we can be succcessful and generate resources, which in turn make us more likely (d) to have wives, who (a) bear, birth and care for our children...

Men are just more used to making the kinds of career v. family decisions, and the vast, vast majority of us choose "career." Mr. Mom's are rare indeed, and rather vilified.

So: Apples and oranges. No one gets it all.
posted by UncleFes at 1:51 PM on April 12, 2002

You know, every few years there's another article/book like this -- "Sucessful Women Not Really All That Sucessful," or "Men Would Rather Date a Badger Than A Woman With a Career" or "If You Want Kids, You'd Better Start Sniveling," or something to that effect. It pisses me off.

This seems to me just another way to keep women feeling like no matter what they do, they can't really make it. That they may be able to have a career, but they won't really be happy.

It does not even begin to address that not everybody wants children, that some people might like to adopt children, and that there are actually quite a lot of men out there who are not intimidated by successful women.

In short, Puh-LEASE. Give me a break.
posted by jennyjenny at 2:25 PM on April 12, 2002

Basic problems with men picking up the burden of children in the marriage:

* Many women simply don't think that their husbands are capable of being adequate caretakers for their children. Many husbands agree, many more don't feel that they can contest the point with their wives. If you wife wants to stay home, and your salary can support the family, end of story.

* A woman can downshift her career and come back a few years later saying, "hey, I wanted to spend a few years with my kids." It's not easy, but I see it happening more and more. It is very, very hard to imagine a male executive or professional being given a second chance at the fast track if he took time off to be a "Mr. Mom." It would permanently brand you as someone without the ambition and dedication to make it.

* Mr. Mom's are totally, utterly, screwed by divorce. Most times, their wives get to have their cake and eat it, too: they demand (and get) the wife-mother prerogatives of the house, the custody of the kids, the big chunk of the other assets, while their husbands get little or no alimony, and are usually hit with big child support orders based upon their former careers which they downshifted or left to be with the kids.

If a "hey, I downshifted for a while and now I'm back" Mr. Dad would get laughed out of the interview, the "I relied upon my wife to support me and now she tossed me out and I have to pay child support on top that" would get laughed out, and then get a kick in the ass on the way out the door for his troubles.
posted by MattD at 2:26 PM on April 12, 2002

After Time Magazine put on the cover the latest publication, in what has become an almost annual ritual, to discuss the cost and sacrifices made by career focused women; Maureen Dowd compared the human situation with the Bonobos in her column in the Times this week. She reassured the human males that they stood to gain plenty of sex from the ambitious, competitive and upwardly mobile women; if only they'd compromise a little on their need to dominate, as the Bonobo males have done. While her female readers replied that they now had more options than ever; the males shared the cold hard truth:

I have been a single professional for six years. I have met several women with unusually high incomes, and without exception they have been looking only for men with even higher earnings than theirs.
- Jim Huntington. Longwood, Fla.

Unfortunately, those "men with even higher earnings" are already married, with children, as the Hewlett says in her book.
posted by tamim at 2:28 PM on April 12, 2002

Jenny Jenny: agreed that people shouldn't be trying to make women feel bad for their choices. The point of this book, though, is different: woman are actively being lied to about very important issues of fact around declining fertility. That's a scandal, and that it affects the women who (as a general matter) are most-well educated and have access to the best health care, only makes it worse.

Paying attention to this story is more empowering to women, since it arms them to make better and more accurate choices about their careers and families. In other words, if you want to be an executive vice president at 40, and you make an informed decision to forgo having a child during your late 20's and 30's in order to achieve it, knowing the risks that you'll never have a biological child therafter, more power to you.

There is no value judgement here -- at worse, they universalize what is not a universal, but is certainly a very common, desire of most people, men and women alike, to have biological children, which they rank equally with or above their career aspirations.
posted by MattD at 2:36 PM on April 12, 2002

Thanks, tamim. I must lead a sheltered life. I saw this in the Harvard Business Review. People I knew were talking about it in late March. I never read Time magazine.
posted by vacapinta at 2:55 PM on April 12, 2002

It doesn't require buying that book to understand what's going on : woman are incresingly successful in business not because they're special ,but because they have more opportunities then before.

Absolutely nothing wrong in that, but the fact that kids are paying the prices of their mom and pop success more then before because now both mom and pop are frequently away.

You can hear people saying "kids can be taken care of adequately even if mon and pop are often away" that's sometimes true, but it's also obviously true that dedicating more time to a kid gives more opportunity to have an influence on their life , positive or negative.

Face it you can't trust grossly underpaid teachers both in public and private school into paying all the attention a mom or pop can give a kid ; of course they need school more for it positive social impact and opportunity to learn, but you just can't replace a good parent. Tv doesn't tell you about all the trouble that a couple of good parents can solve, they only show you columbine like stuff.

Now the point is the so called trade-off ; in layman terms, do you want a new car or a better kid ? Choose wisely because you can have a car later, but you can't recover a kid as easily.

I don't buy the satisfaction from career bullshit : people work for money and if they like their job it's less stressful, but people taking PURE enjoyment from work are a minority.

Or if you like it from another point of view, your work have already planned your layoff and is tring to pull each and every dime out of you, if possible by making you feel happy with some minor incentive in $$ every now and then.

Your family is pulling money away from you too, but they surely aren't planning your layoff in advance : they don't want your money to leave at all ! And if you're lucky they may not want you to leave too ! Sounds better to me.

It's a matter of balance, as like in companies, so don't let your worklife eat your life away, you'll not have a second chance.
posted by elpapacito at 3:33 PM on April 12, 2002

To measure those sacrifices, Hewlett interviewed 100 women. She also conducted a nationwide survey last year of nearly 1,200 high-achieving women whose incomes put them in the top 10 percent of salaries.
The usual rigorous scientific method is used here, I see--100 women interviewed, and questionnaires sent out to another 1200--I wonder how many actually replied?
I wonder what her results would have been if she had interviewed a control group of women in middle management, or computing; I bet in any group of a few hundred people you can find regrets for paths not taken. I find it tedious that this stuff comes up again and again--a survey is constructed of a small sample of people, with dubious specifications, and the "results" published as some kind of insightful analysis of an inarguable demographic trend. Feh.
posted by jokeefe at 4:14 PM on April 12, 2002

Jokeefe: I agree that the sample is limited and the method is dubious ; it's evident to anyone with a clue on statistics.
And yes that's stuff has been published 10^10 times with minor variations. This time it seems to me they had luck and hit a real problem, felt by a lot of people -apparently-
posted by elpapacito at 4:40 PM on April 12, 2002

From Ann Crittenden's book The Price of Motherhood:

The Big Difference Between Men's Work and Women's Work is Men Get Paid
The principal difference between "men's work" and "women's work" is that men are paid for most of the work they do and women are not. One need look no further for the causes of the relative poverty of women and children.

As an example, I was particularly shocked to discover how far from an equal economic partnership modern marriage still is. The spouse who primarily cares for the children has no legal claim on the primary breadwinner's income, which is mislabeled as "family income." She has no statutory right to half the family's assets in the vast majority of states. And if a divorce occurs, she is not entitled to compensation for her financial sacrifices on behalf of the family, despite evidence that the typical college-educated mother may lose as much as one million dollars in lifetime income as a result of having a child. Most divorced mothers leave marriage with a much lower earning capacity, and fully 40 percent will need to turn to welfare for some period of time.

This staggering "mommy tax," as I call it, explains why more than one-quarter of college-educated baby boomer women have had no children: The costs--the economic risks--have simply been too high.

In response to Uncle Fes' comment, it's true, no one can "have it all," but the dirty little secret of family life is that men have a lot more of "all" than women. Women don't progress as far in careers, hold public office, and, are much, much more likely to be poor. While the case of the impoverished "Mr. Mom" might happen, it's a sort of "man bites dog" trope -- that is, it's only news because it's unusual. Women, overwhelmingly women, end up with foreshortened careers and poverty as a consequence of motherhood. Now, you can't "have it all," but what about having enough to eat or pay the light bill? Or some hope for your daughter of being president? Too much of "all" to ask for?
posted by lisatmh at 6:55 PM on April 12, 2002

What did UncleFes actually say that's inconsistent with what you want, lisatmh?
posted by NortonDC at 7:29 PM on April 12, 2002

but the dirty little secret of family life is that men have a lot more of "all" than women

The fact is that we as men simply don't have the choice to devote ourselves to having and raising children - biology precludes us from the former, and stigma raises high penalties for the latter. A woman that chooses to stay home with the kids? A respected lifestyle choice. A man who does the same? A lazy sack of shit who can kiss any hope of further career advancement goodbye. Subsequently, we devote great blocs of our time and energy (I'm checking my work email even now, and AIM'ing with one of my bosses), sacrifice our time with our children (weeknights, I see my son for about two hours, plus a couple peeks when he's sleeping), and enjoy shortened lifespans due to stress-related health effects (ulcer at 26, migraines at 29, Lipitor at 34, and I have it pretty easy - there some "all" for you, eh?). Since we can't have children on our own and are considered inferior caregivers by the mothers of our children and the courts, we throw ourselves into our careers. Women are only now beginning to understand what that entails.

Women, overwhelmingly women, end up with foreshortened careers and poverty as a consequence of motherhood.

Well, avoid it: don't have kids. Get jobs and earn the "million dollars" in lost wages you sacrifice for staying home. You ABSOLUTELY control the baby-making process. It's that simple. But to complain about the consequences of your choices like it some sort of outwardly-applied oppression is ridiculous.
posted by UncleFes at 10:06 PM on April 12, 2002

I'm a successful single woman who makes over 100k and have other successful women friends as well. We would have gladly slowed down our career if we met the right guy....but it's much more difficult in our position. I have found that even men making more than me or are more successful are STILL intimidated by the successful woman. They want to be the smarter, richer one in the relationship. It seems the men that are left, are the ones that are looking for women to be their mother. They are passive and weak and want the woman to be in charge. Another factor in all this is...a successful woman is much less likely to put up with pain in the butt guys....

A woman who cannot take care of herself can put up with her husband's antics for fear of her not being left destitute. I must say in recent years....that when I have dated a man, they didn't know what to do with themselves....Since many men connect their success on MONETARILY providing for the woman, and they didn't have to meet that need....they didn't have anything else to bring to the table. Myself and other women found that there wasn't much motivation for being in a relationship because the men were a negative asset rather than a positive one....they created problems versus creating partnership...

Thankfully I'm in a good relationship with a man who doesn't connect his masculinity with the dollar and he can provide so many positive things that a woman needs in a man.....protection, safety, strength, an ability to make a woman feel cherished and honored as a woman.... He's strong and ACTS LIKE A MAN.

There's a fallacy that strong women want a weak man...that couldn't be farther from the truth. The problem is...when you are a strong woman, finding an even stronger man in this day and age is literally impossible. There are so many men who were raised by only their mothers that they have no clue what it is to be a man.
posted by Sonserae at 1:52 AM on April 13, 2002

Sonserae : and now you could improve your chances of fidinding a replacement man (in the unlikely but possible event of your man looking for a weaker woman) by explaining the do and don't and what is your idea of acting like a man. Take your time know it's not easy to express this concept for every woman.
posted by elpapacito at 2:11 AM on April 13, 2002

hmmm....well....I've had this discussion with many of my successful women friends and we pretty much agree on the definition. Now...I'm going to be blunt...and don't be offended.

Many men think that very successful woman are ultimate feminists. That is so untrue. The only feminists I know are lesbians and aren't interested in men anyway. Suffice to say, the successful women I know LOVE to be treated like a woman....they like their door opened for them and walked to their car or house, etc. I have gone on many dates and been appalled at the inconsiderate nature of some of the men. I'm not just talking about missing the boat on being a gentleman, I'm talking about not having any of the human considerations you usually would assume someone was raised with. Example:...Date: Man parks right outside coffee place, woman can't find a close parking place and parks 6 blocks away. Man doesn't offer to buy her coffee and only buys his own coffee. (Mind you, he asked me out). At the end of the evening, it's 10:30pm, in Los Angeles....he gets in his car parked right outside the coffee place and zooms by her while she is walking by herself for 6 blocks late at night in the dark.

I can't tell you how many times there have been examples of this....Countless. The most important thing for a woman to find in a man is safety and security....no matter how much money she has. She wants to feel that he has her best interests in mind and is going to protect her and keep her safe. This is an innate instinct. Women don't see the man being the father of their children if they don't have any consideration for anyone but himself and his needs.

The fact is....many men don't have good examples of being a man anymore. Their fathers left them when they were young and their mother did everything for them...from working all day to taking care of all their needs at home. When the guy goes out and looks for a woman....he's looking for the same type of woman his mother is....someone who can do everything for him. He doesn't know what it's like to have a plan, take charge and have the confidence and independence to do things on his own.
I can't tell you how many men I've gone out that were relying on me to give them direction, tell them where to take me on a date, solve their problems, etc...

Something that is very attractive to women...especially successful women is a man who is confident and has a clear direction for his life and is not afraid to make those things happen. I'm not talking about being a control freak...I'm talking about taking responsibility. Many men just aren't that responsible. They make promises they don't keep and are big talkers but the talk doesn't follow the actions. A man who is true to his word is a rare gem. Many men are fair-weathered friends. They are there only during the fun times. When things get rough, they are gone in a flash. A woman is quite impressed when the man is committed to being there during the difficult crisis' as well. He's willing to be a partner when it comes to household duties. etc..

I can go on forever about this....but other factors are that they aren't threatened by the success or intelligence of the woman. He still knows that she needs a man to provide things that she can't provide like a man can.....Protection, safety, honor, strength, affection and partnership etc...
I guess I should write a book....
posted by Sonserae at 9:04 AM on April 13, 2002

Thankfully I'm in a good relationship with a man who doesn't connect his masculinity with the dollar and he can provide so many positive things that a woman needs in a man.....protection, safety, strength, an ability to make a woman feel cherished and honored as a woman.... He's strong and ACTS LIKE A MAN.

Sonserae: What do you mean by "acts like a man"? How would you describe "acting like a man"? You can't mean that he literally protects you and keeps you safe. After all, you make $100,000 a year; what is he protecting you from?

So, what is "strength" to you? Is 'manliness' nothing more than confidence, competence, and independence?
posted by gd779 at 10:09 AM on April 13, 2002

See, you are like all the other men...you assume "protection" and safety is MONETARY. Unbelievable.
example....my car breaks down and I call the man....if he tells me to call AAA and hangs up...well....I know I certainly don't feel protected and safe with him. If he shows concern and drives to pick me up and helps me in my time of need....I feel safe with him. This seems soooooo commonsensical but sense you responded like that, it only proves my theory to be true...most men don't know what it's like to be a man.
posted by Sonserae at 3:34 PM on April 13, 2002

people work for money and if they like their job it's less stressful, but people taking PURE enjoyment from work are a minority.

I don't think this is true: people like to be useful, they like to accomplish things - even if the work in and of itself isn't particularly exciting, the feeling of being responsible for something, of completing something, or of having expertise in some area is important to people. We identify ourselves partly through what we do for a living, and we feel good when we make progress in our chosen area. So it's not just money - in fact, people who inherit money or win lotto or whatever often wander around feeling useless and hopeless, as they're simply not needed, don't fit into the world...

so many positive things that a woman needs in a man.....protection, safety, strength, an ability to make a woman feel cherished and honored as a woman.... He's strong and ACTS LIKE A MAN.

jesus. speak for yourself sister.

The fact is....many men don't have good examples of being a man anymore. Their fathers left them when they were young and their mother did everything for them

this is exactly the kind of psuedo-analytic bullshit the christian right uses to explain why some men are gay. Maybe some of these men you've dated have been brought up to view men and women as equals; to respect women enough to understand that they are capable humans who don't need to sell themselves for free dinner...

Clearly some women like this treatment, as you've indicated - I'm just pointing out that you needn't turn to groundless psychological interpretations to explain the actions of those men. I guess a lot of guys are going to offend some woman or other depending on whether they do or don't try to pay for dinner - but being offended is ultimately silly. All we need is basic communication: explain what you want, and see if it fits with what they want. If a guy wants to be the protector, he's not gonna fit into my world, so I'll send him your way.

most men don't know what it's like to be a man.

Just because some men don't fit your stereotype of what a man is, that doesn't mean that they are defective. I rather doubt I fit your definition of "woman" but I certainly identify as such. I'm sure there are men out there who would say that you "don't know what it means to be a woman" considering your income - but I imagine you disagree.
posted by mdn at 4:10 PM on April 13, 2002

I don't know where someone got the impression I was looking for a man to buy me dinner. Whatever. I'm talking about human consideration first and foremost. If the tables were turned and I parked out front and my guy friend was 6 blocks away, I'd offer to give him a ride to his car. Being considerate is lost on some people. As far as someone saying that I don't know what it's like to be a woman because I make over 100k...that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Once again, people defining genders based on monetary ideals.
I'm nurturing, affectionate, caring and have a big heart....and as far as the traditional things that are "womanly"...I've sewn since I was 5 and have cooked for about that long too....just because I'm successful at my career, does not make me less of a woman...take a look at my picture on my website and see if I'm butch to you.
posted by Sonserae at 5:06 PM on April 13, 2002

The Time article is totally focussed on having-kids&staying-at-home or have-a-career. Most people want both.

How about if men share more of the boring time-consuming bits? Taking the kid to dental appts. and drum lessons, changing the sheets at 3 a.m. after a sick kid threw up on them again, etc. How about if both parents get to choose career and family. How about if women and men really push employers to demand a reasonable amount of time at work, not your whole life, so that male and female people could have kids and careers. I meet an increasing number of men who are highly involved fathers, and really want the time to be active in their children's lives.

And, yeah, I see them as Real Men. I don't really care who opens the door, unless somebody is injured or carrying packages, the inviter pays the check, but who cares if it's just coffee, and mostly it comes down to good manners.

By the way, sonsarae, I'm female, feminist, straight. The image of all feminists as lesbians and/or man-haters is silly. I want equal pay for equal work, and equal rights under the law. That's how I define feminist.

For a lot of the women I know who wanted kids and didn't have them, the reason is that they never found a man who was ready to commit.
posted by theora55 at 6:24 PM on April 13, 2002

See, you are like all the other men...you assume "protection" and safety is MONETARY. Unbelievable.

I appearantly didn't make myself clear, and so you misunderstood my point. Let me try again: You presumably do not really look to your husband for either physical or financial protection. As a successful woman living in America, you almost certainly don't need that kind of protection. Instead, what you presumably want is a feeling of protection. I was hoping that you'd explain precisely what actions your husband takes that gives you that feeling. I was wondering what you thought a "real man" was.

And, with all respect, I submit that you don't and can't possibly know. What you think of as "manliness" (chivalry, consideration, strength, etc.) are just a few of the outward manifestations of manhood. But the thing that seperates the "real" men from the boys isn't on the outside. Competence, chivalry, protective behavior and strong arms are all attractive, but they aren't the key thing. In my estimation, true manhood is a strange mixture of responsibility, selflessness, and strength that isn't always immediately appearant in people.
posted by gd779 at 8:19 PM on April 13, 2002

I don't know where someone got the impression I was looking for a man to buy me dinner.

I got that from quotes like:
the successful women I know LOVE to be treated like a woman....they like their door opened for them and walked to their car or house, etc.

he can provide so many positive things that a woman needs in a man.....protection, safety, strength, an ability to make a woman feel cherished and honored as a woman.... He's strong and ACTS LIKE A MAN.

As far as someone saying that I don't know what it's like to be a woman because I make over 100k...that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

That was my point: your definition of what makes a man "a man" may not be the same as other people's, just as some people's idea that a woman who is aggressive in business or professional life (as you must be to pull in that salary) is somehow unfeminine.

just because I'm successful at my career, does not make me less of a woman...take a look at my picture on my website and see if I'm butch to you

you know, by my definition, even if you were butch, you wouldn't be "less of a woman".
posted by mdn at 8:25 PM on April 13, 2002

In my estimation, true manhood is a strange mixture of responsibility, selflessness, and strength that isn't always immediately appearant in people.

are selfless, responsible, strong women "true men"?

do positive qualities have to be defined by gender?
posted by mdn at 2:37 PM on April 14, 2002

do positive qualities have to be defined by gender?

Of course that's not what I meant. That would be idiotic.
posted by gd779 at 3:32 PM on April 14, 2002

Okay. I'll bite the bullet, a bit belatedly. I, too, am an ultra high achieving woman (defined slightly idiotically as a woman who make more than 100K per year). I'm single, and would like to have kids. I was intrigued by this debate; what after all defines the male and female roles?

Let me take a step back first. Why and how did I get into this rat race? My mother was a single mother for a long time, and my grandmother was a single mother. Both were teachers and artists, and at times, communists. The consequences of those choices were sometimes admirable and sometimes left me hungry. Literally.

What started as making sure that my family would always be comfortable, became, after a point, a lot more like keeping score. And now, that I'm meeting a lot of guys that my friends tell me are "not my equal" (because they don't make as much money, don't have a yacht, don't have a fancy title), I'm finding myself wondering how far in the gender-bender thing I want to go.

Because, ideally, I'd like to stay home with my kids... and if I'm the anchor income, that's not going to happen. Unless of course, we (my potential partner & I) take a big step back, and ask ourselves just what sort of standard of living is satisifactory. And, am I willing to downshift? And if I don't, what role does that put me in? And can my relationships survive it? Can I?

At the end of the day, it seems to me this dilemma is about class, and about the way that individuals in our society have the flexibility to jack themselves up to the next class. Moving to the "executive" class has its perks, the primary one (if you ask me) is the exercise of power. And this power is something that historically women have had a lot less of, something that we traditionally expect our men to have more, and that when we look for partners, we usually expect our mate to have as much or more. The time frame, goal oriented exercise of power makes you not nice; because you can't afford to be. Whether its denying your team their weekend, disciplining a member, or facing down a group of senior executives determined to tear you a new asshole, you've got to be pretty ruthlessly focused. Neither your own nor your team's personal considerations come into play.

And that's not really who I want to be with my significant other; which means to me that he's got to stand on his own two feet. Its not really question of money or status (those are just convenient ways of keeping the score), but power.

And I'm relieved to say that power in a relationship is more centered around two independent, confident, individuals who find some way to meet halfway and who have positive qualities we expect to find in mature adults in our society and alot less centered around being an i-banker who racks up the hours and brings home the bucks and pays for that gorgeous vacation home but never spends any time in it.
posted by zia at 11:41 PM on April 15, 2002