BlogU

  • ABC’s and PhD’s: Opting elsewhere

    By Dana Campbell October 7, 2009 8:42 am

    An article in the Washington Post last week stirred up the old “Opt-out” argument of Lisa Belkin by bringing in recent census statistics to investigate patterns of at-home parenting. The article, Census dispels “opting-out” notion for stay-at-home moms: Most stay-at-home moms start that way, reports that of the 5.6 million at-home moms in this country, the majority of them are young, minimally educated, Hispanic or foreign born. The article concludes that the “opt-out” revolution – which is the idea that there is a growing demographic of highly educated mothers giving up high-powered careers to raise their kids – is “beside the point”, swamped out by huge numbers of at-home moms who are not in this category.

    Oh. Okay then. If you believe this, I guess we shouldn’t examine this issue any more. Since the percentage of career-track opt-outs is so small (relative to other at-home moms), evidently there’s no point in actually comparing this data between census records to see if there is any trend resembling the one Belkin suggested in 2003. This article doesn’t. If you’re the writer of a newspaper article, just call the opt-out revolution a myth and be done with it. Why bother.

    Or instead, maybe we could appreciate the complexities of those who “opted out” more fully. In fact, this group may not be nearly as small or low-impact as it appears, and thus not be so “beside the point” as this article makes it out to be (even if the census does not provide evidence of an opt-out revolution – which remains to be seen). Seems to me, some terminology and definitions have given at-home parenting the short end of the stick. One problem is that the census definition of this group: those “who did not work in the previous year” has significant problems. For one thing, this phrase should really be stated as “those who did not draw a salary in the previous year” – every educated at-home mom I know is working every bit she can; besides bringing up her kids she pours her training into all sorts of intellectual projects which contribute to society, schools, communities, often her professional field, her children. (In fact, maybe the definition should be “those whose contributions were not financially recognized”). I also dislike the term “Opting-out” – I understand its history comes from the perspective of analyzing parents who have left careers, but it contributes to the false notion that when a parent leaves her traditional paid position, she is out - no longer productively engaged in any aspect of that field and her career would not be worth reviving in the future. Could we override this with a more positive sounding term? (Something like “Opting-elsewhere” to reflect that these at-home moms are integrating their knowledge and skills into other arenas than they might in their traditional career track.)

    And maybe the effective size of this group isn’t actually so small. Another problem with the census definition of “at home parent” is the drawing of a line through a broad continuum of how mothers balance work and family. By defining a mom as “working” as soon as she earned even a very minor wage artificially narrows the strict “at-home mom” group, making it seem much smaller than it probably actually is. Where you draw the line in a continuum like this can be politically powerful.

    I know that there are many, many moms out there who have stepped away from their targeted traditional career goals to raise kids, often because part-time and other family friendly options don’t exist. These parents go through a lot of angst and unproductive worry about “the other side of the fence” – where they could be had they more fully followed their career. At the same time, many parents cling to their careers even though they really would like to be home more with their families. These are real phenomena. We shouldn’t “opt out” of discussing the at-home group any more than we should stop discussing ways to shift towards a more family-friendly medium in the workplace, or any more than we should put aside discussion of the needs of those who may not have as many familial obligations. All these are part and parcel of one discussion: the modern balancing act. How can academia (and other workplaces) more fully understand and incorporate the far more diverse spectrum of work-family balancing needs of the modern workforce if we ignore a portion of the balancers?

Go to comments (4) »
Advertisement
Open Job?

Comments on ABC’s and PhD’s: Opting elsewhere

  • A deeper conversation
  • Posted by Laura Blankenship , Opted Elsewhere at Career Limbo on October 7, 2009 at 11:30am EDT

  • I agree there needs to be a deeper conversation around these issues and there was a slightly deeper one on the NPR show "Tell Me More" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113533764). The show included the author of the original research the news article was based on and then brought in Pamela Stone, author of "Opting Out?", Leslie Morgan-Steiner and a well-educated currently at-home mom. It was an interesting conversation.

    Even if moms like me, with advanced degrees and years of experience, do make up a smaller percentage of the at-home mom population, certainly the work we could be doing on a part-time or full-time basis would be a considerable contribution. Most of us, I think, just don't want to have to give up the significant contribution we make at home. With work loads in academic and other upper echelon jobs nearing 60 or 70 hours/week, couples who both work those hours just can't even begin to contribute enough time to the family.

    Here's some suggestions. Real part-time work, not crappy part-time work that is devoid of intellectual stimulation or part-time work that's really full-time work. Part-time work that is stable and not a matter of waiting to see if enough sections are available from semester to semester. Off ramping and on ramping. People could cut back to part-time temporarily, for a year or two, for example and then increase back to full-time. Telecommuting as a real option. My kids are in school most of the day. I could easily be working during those hours. And you might say, well, you could go out and get a full-time job, but there's the after school situation, the weird days off school, all of which are hard to manage with a full-time job, but would be cake with part-time or telecommuting.

    I'm still "working" while at home. I write every day. I finished an article earlier this year. I'm presenting at a conference next month. I've done consulting work. I'm keeping my technical skills honed by building and maintaining a web site for the elementary school PTO. Plus I do laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc. I'm happy with that balance so far, but I do wish there were more options for me.

  • Opting elsewhere, not out
  • Posted by MBG on October 8, 2009 at 10:15am EDT

  • As you point out, the census makes a clean separation between "in" and "out" of the workforce when such a distinction is hard to apply to those working in knowledge-producing fields. I would add to the gray area this kind of scenario: People who opt into alternate careers all together, but with the expectation that it's for a limited time.

    I left the tenure track to have a better work-life balance and better support my family's goals. I have two small children, one born before I left and one born because I could after I left! My husband is also going back to school.

    But instead of not working all-together (or working part time, or working "for myself" e.g. consulting or continuing my research around parenting responsibilities), I took a staff position at another University. Even though I didn't technically "off ramp" according to the traditional definition, and although I have my concerns about how likely it might be for me to get "on [ramp to]" the tenure track again after my now-1-year-old is in elementary school, I consider this an "opting out" of my career plan, even though I still work full time.

  • Well-put!
  • Posted by Aeron on October 8, 2009 at 10:15am EDT

  • Good points, Dana!

    I'm suspicious of any efforts to shut down conversations about career/family struggles.

    My question continues to be: why aren't we hearing about more men "opting out"?

  • Down but not Out
  • Posted by Anna on October 13, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

  • As your rightly point out, the artifical dichoty of in/out further muddies the water of this discussion. When my son was first born I joined a playgroup in which all of the other parents had advanced degrees, but chose to be primarily at home. However, because most of us would adjunct a class here or a class there we were not technical "out." This dialed down schedule made us all primary caregivers for our children and also brought with it all of the same problems that a full scale opt out would, such as difficulty entering the tenure track later, significantly decreased retirement savings, and laughable earnings. Our society wants to turn a blind eye to the complicated issues of work family balance and a black and white look at the data further fuels that.

Print
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed