So I finally read
The Feminine Mistake for myself. I expected it would make me mad, and it did at points, however, it was actually inspiring at times. The cover quote is by Ann Crittenden and explains that "Leslie Bennetts tackles head-on the popular myth that a man is a financial plan." Therefore, according to Bennetts, being economically dependent on a man is the classic feminine mistake.
Here are some of my reactions to it, and I'd welcome any comments as I work through these issues in my head:
*She is right that it can be risky for a woman to put aside her career and depend on a man for economic support. But there are ways to minimize these risks, such as good life and disability insurance, a healthy emergency fund, and both partners having a thorough knowledge of the family finances. Women can make sure to gain a solid education and work experience, and then keep up their networks and professional reading while on hiatus from paid work.I think there is also a difference between taking a few years out and taking 30 years out.
*She talks a lot about 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and even if that's true (I know many researchers say that statistic is high), it doesn't mean that EVERY marriage has a 50% chance of ending. Some couples likely have a 99% chance of divorce, and others a 1% chance. Marriage researchers like
John Gottman have studied what factors increase the chance of divorce, so while women shouldn't have their heads in the sand, I do think she is rather alarmist about this risk.
*Still, she does have a point that women should be prepared to support themselves and their children if necessary. I will encourage my son and my daughter to prepare for a career and gain work experience. I'm glad I did, as I married at age 29 and then spent several years helping Eric get through his MA and PhD. I will try to get back to doing paid work once my kids are in school, or even before if it's flexible.
*Bennetts had an excellent nanny for her children who was with her family for 12 years. Needless to say, she doesn't see why so many families have a hard time finding quality childcare. I think her own experience has given her rose-colored glasses, as most families would not be able to find or afford childcare such as Bennetts had. She believes that having a stay-at-home parent does not benefit a child in any way, except perhaps in the first few months. She has a patronizing and condescending tone toward stay-at-home moms and says things like, "I wouldn't gamble with my children's lives like that." It angers me that she is so dismissive of people who put their careers aside for caregiving purposes. It may not be everyone's choice, but I totally disagree that it has no benefit for children. I think the research is much less clear than Bennetts asserts. I also wonder if she thinks childcare workers are making "the feminine mistake" since many work for not much more than minimum wage.
*Bennetts shines when she talks about what she loves about working, and how fulfilling it has been to grow in her career. I think this is an empowering message for women, as many of us sell ourselves short, or have a tendency to shrink back from embracing our potential. But I don't agree that the only way to do this is to work full-time with no breaks or scaling back. I do wish it were easier to stay connected to a career and find intellectual outlets while staying home with kids.
*I like her opinion that men and women need to share the housework. Generation X men tend to do a good job with this, but generational and societal expectations can still leave many couples feeling like housework and childcare are "women's work." If we can get past this, it can lead to many more creative solutions for work-life balance. For example, when I worked part-time in Scotland, Eric studied at home and had Daddy--daughter time with Kate.
*Ultimately, Bennetts is disappointed that Generation X women do not seem to be carrying on the torch of the feminist Baby Boomers. See Amy Tiemann's interesting
post about this. She is dismayed at the stats showing highly educated women opting out of their careers, and gives many warnings about how difficult it can be to opt back in. She believes that once organizations have enough women in the top roles, changes will be made to facilitate work-life balance. I'm a bit skeptical of this, considering that most western nations make life easier on families in so many ways (paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, job shares). Did these come about only when women reached top positions in those countries? Look at Canada. One year of paid maternity leave! This is a big contrast to 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave in the US. Maybe fewer women in the US would opt out if they had that kind of mat leave. In countries with universal healthcare, fathers and mothers can share childcare more easily, since healthcare is not dependent on someone working full-time.
*I'm not one to throw caution to the wind, but I don't think the things God calls us to do always make the most economic sense. Being a stay-at-home mom for a while likely doesn't make the most economic sense. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do. What would Leslie Bennetts think of missionaries? I think perhaps Generation X is forging a new path, where both men and women opt in and out of work, change careers if necessary, and pioneer new ways of working flexibly. Plus, isn't there supposed to be a labor shortage when the Baby Boomers retire? My views may be skewed because I am in a female-dominated profession, and one that can be done part-time and flexibly quite easily. I know these issues are far more complicated for female doctors, businesswomen, and professors.
What do you think?
My friend, Colleen Taylor, gave a house concert in Caronport this weekend. Before we moved to Caronport, I discovered Colleen's blog, and thought I would find a kindred spirit in her. However, upon moving here, I realized she was moving away! Still, we stay in touch online, and it was great to see her in person at her concert!
