"Shut down your wife"

Good satire is alternatingly infuriating and enlightening.  This week's case in point is this playful piece by Michael Lewis from Sunday's Los Angeles Times: How to Put your Wife Out of Business.  Excerpt:

There was a brief time, from about 1985 to 1991, when high-powered males demonstrated their status by marrying equally high-powered females with high-paying jobs. That time has passed. The surest way for a man to exhibit his social status — the finest bourgeois bling — is to find the most highly paid woman you can, working in the most high-profile job, and shut her down.

Jeepers.  Even in jest, Lewis is going for a nerve. He offers his own experience as an example:

What men need, really, are role models. Other men who have done it and lived to tell the tale. Consider, for example, me. I hope I don't need to remind the reader, but I will anyway: When we met, my wife — Tabitha Soren — was a hotshot. She walked from her offices at MTV into Times Square and people shrieked her name and bayed for her autograph. She made pots of money. She couldn't swing a dead cat in the television business without hitting a job offer. And now — behold! Two children later, she has happily abandoned fame and fortune and is making a second "career" as a fine-art photographer.

Bonus points for those readers who remember Tabitha Soren.  I certainly do.

There's some considerable truth in what Lewis writes, in that most of us can think of a great many examples of successful women who, usually in their thirties, choose to focus on motherhood and homemaking while opting out of their careers.  I come from a large family; I've got half a dozen female cousins in their thirties or early forties to whom I am very close.  All are college-educated, most had considerable success early on in their twenties.  All have had children in the past decade, and have chosen to focus their time and their energy on their families.  If they do work outside the home, they do so in a part-time or volunteer capacity.

The problem with Lewis is that even in satire, he denies his wife (and other "shut-down" women) their own agency.   (He's got other problems, like crass class-ism, but we'll let that be for now.)  For Lewis, opting out of the business world is not presented as something his wife (or other successful women) chose because motherhood and homemaking spoke to their real desires; rather, it is something that he (and other successful men) made possible through their own power and financial resources.   The wives's choices are thus contingent on their husband's high status, rather than on the wives's genuine desire to place "family first."   Lewis is right about the end result, but vastly over-inflates men's role in it.

Judging from the experiences of family and friends (and societal trends at large), it would be hard to deny that there are a great many successful women who choose to leave high-status jobs (at least temporarily)  in order to focus on their families.  But anti-feminists make a mistake when they assume that these women have somehow magically "seen the light" by abandoning careers for domestic bliss.  Rather, many of my female friends and family seem conscious of a kind of seasonality to their lives and to their reproductive choices.  As they aged, their priorities shifted.   But those priorities will surely shift again as their children grow and become more autonomous.  Let me assure you that my dear female cousins who are homemakers at 35 have no intention of remaining clear of public life indefinitely!   Once one has had a child, one is surely a parent forever.  But the amount of time and energy parenting requires does, thankfully, seem to decrease somewhat as children mature and grow more autonomous.

I'll catch some flak for this, but in my opinion one of the greatest gifts a  husband can give his wife is the freedom to choose to what degree she wishes to remain in the public sphere after they've had children.   Obviously, if she'd like to continue to work outside the home, that will mean that he will have to take over a corresponding amount of domestic work.  (Unless they are wealthy enough to afford outside help.)  Her ability to continue to pursue her goals is contingent on his willingness to change diapers, do dishes, and take over child-rearing responsibilities.  Some couples may be quite happy with a very traditional arrangement, with husband as "breadwinner" and wife as "domestic engineer".  Others, motivated by desire or necessity, may find it essential to have two incomes even while their children are small.  The man's job, as far as I am concerned, is to do more than provide materially for his wife.  It is to make it possible for her to decide just how committed to her career she would like to be after motherhood.

Comments

[Amanda]

Pretty classist. I don't have any friends nor can I think of any family of mine where women have really had the choice to "opt out". My mom finally has enough money, but with no children, there's no point. And that's it.

It's nice to say that men should offer this to their wives, but no men I know have the means. You're veering very close to emasculating good men who are dedicated to their families who maybe are ashamed they can't support them all on their own.

[Trish Wilson]

I couldn't even get past the first sentence in that article before I saw a problem.

"With women now paid as much as 90 cents on the dollar for the same work as men, it is increasingly difficult to shut down your wife's commercial activities and get her to focus on household chores."

That is NOT TRUE. Women are paid 90% of what men make ONLY in low-paying, entry-level jobs they get with men shortly after graduating from college. As they marry and especially bear children, the wage gap widens to the 76 cents to the male dollar primarily due to mothers taking on primary responsibility for child care that fathers do not take.

That the article starts out with a falsehood doesn't bode well for the rest of it.

[djw]

First, what Amanda said. Two-income trap and all that. Obsession with good schools (which always seems weird to me, coming from a one-public no private HS town, but I can understand it).

But I also wonder--I can understand lots of people, including some men, being perfectly happy to chill out on the career and raise kids for a while. I suspect, though, that those people tend to not be the Very Ambitious And Super Extra Hard Working People who rise as far as the people Lewis is talking about to cheerfully give it all up to change diapers. I suppose they exist, but if they wanted to go that route, why kill themselves from 18-32?

I think Lewis' point is to skewer a particular kind of high-end masculine ego trip--"Look at how much she's willing to give up to raise MY kids, and all because I am so super-successful as to be able to support our glorious lifestyle all by myself." That sort of overconfident masculine ego-trip richly deserves to be skewered.

[wtb]

I've read this post through twice, and what I think you're saying is that it's not only my duty to make enough to support a wife and children, but I must also do as much house work as is necessary to permit my wife to have an (optional) career.

At least this is what I think this means:

"The man's job, as far as I am concerned, is to do more than provide materially for his wife. {I.e. this is a given] It is to make it possible for her to decide just how committed to her career she would like to be after motherhood. [I.e. this is not option, even if I'm supporting her and the children on my own.] "

I presume you have money and time enough to live up to your exacting standards?

[La Lubu]

Right on to what Amanda said. I've always found the various "opt-out revolution" articles to not only describe a rather small minority of folks, but also to give a double-whammy of classism and sexism to parents: the "if you were a real mom, you'd be home with your kids" to women, and the "if you were a real man, your wife would be at home taking care of the kids" to men.

And what that disparaging attitude does to hard-working people who don't have the financial "opt-out" option isn't pretty. My cynical side can't help but think the prevalence of articles such as these serves to perpetuate the feeling in parents that "this (the work/family balancing act) is only our problem...everyone else seems to be doing so much better". Serves to keep folks from waking up and getting politically active and fighting for benefits that the rest of the industrialized world and some portions of the semi-industrialized world take for granted.

[Fred Vincy]

Hugo,

I'm afraid that saying you know you'll catch flak for the last paragraph does not immunize you from flak.

First, the entire paragraph seems predicated on the essentialist idea that women have some special need to be fulfilled through parenthood, and some special obligation to parent, that is not shared by men -- otherwise, you would be calling for heterosexual couples to make joint decisions with mutual respect for each person's commitment to career and parenthood. That idea is a big part of the reason women still bear the majority of childcare responsibility in our society and why both women and men face unnecessary difficulty in diverging from societal norms.

In this regard, you say: "Her ability to continue to pursue her goals is contingent on his willingness to change diapers, do dishes, and take over child-rearing responsibilities." That assumes that those are a woman's responsibilities in the first place, even if you encourage men to share those responsibilities. I would say that those are the responsibilities of both parents, and both parents must find a way to share them.

Second, though you criticize Lewis for not recognizing women's agency, your notion that this is a choice that must be provided for women by men -- rather than that a healthy couple can make joint decisions and compromises -- would seem subject to the same criticism.

[syfr]

Well, I am planning on something for me and my (theoretical) husband that looks like this:

...in my opinion one of the greatest gifts a wife can give her husband is the freedom to choose to what degree he wishes to remain in the public sphere after they've had children.   Obviously, if he'd like to continue to work outside the home, that will mean that she will have to take over a corresponding amount of domestic work.  (Unless they are wealthy enough to afford outside help.)  His ability to continue to pursue his goals is contingent on her willingness to change diapers, do dishes, and take over child-rearing responsibilities.  Some couples may be quite happy with a very traditional arrangement....  Others, motivated by desire or necessity, may find it essential to have two incomes even while their children are small.  The woman's job, as far as I am concerned, is to do more than provide materially for her husband.  It is to make it possible for him to decide just how committed to his career he would like to be after fatherhood.

In all seriousness, I am planning on a tenure track academic life in the sciences. Any relationship I have takes that into account. That means I work. He may choose to stay home with the kids, or not. But I work either way. I've put too much into this degree to walk out on it like that.

[Stentor]

I was about to give you some flak, but Fred Vincy beat me to it. Having a stay-at-home parent is great for those who want it and can afford it, and I'm sure you have no conscious animus against stay-at-home dads, but your conservatism is shining through bright and clear in this post.

[Hugo]

I agree with the classism, and pointed that out myself in the original post.

That said, I think it's important to understand that what I am advocating is a model of shared parenting responsibilities that takes into account the cultural and biological factors that make childbirth more impacting on women's lives.

I am not suggesting that men ought to keep their families in luxury. That would be absurd. Men in our culture already feel more than enough pressure to provide. What I am interested in is seeing spouses committed to each other's development -- in whatever form that may take.

[tfreridge]

Great Blog!!!

I was laughing out load by the time I finished the article. I do remember her also. She was great!

The idea that the Male-provider paridigm is being subverted to a two income familly situation is false to begin with. Marriage (union) has always been a mechanism of survival with the basis being that two can accomplish more than one (teamwork). If your survival is dependent upon another, then you support them just a little more fervantly than if they're just your poker buddies.
The supposition that woman didn't have a position of power in successful marriages is false. For both man and woman, the offspring is the everlasting genetic monument and ultimate trophy of survival.

Since successful men can give women the option to stay at home, they are more likely to have children. This is a class issue? The point being that the more educated, wealthy, and successful you are the more likely you are to reproduce.

Ironic isn't? The opposite of this is the reality. The poorer, uneducated masses are reproducing like the proverbial rabbits.

I think maybe the problem is how we attempt to define "success".

[yami]

I realize that for all practical purposes, we have the same goal - spouses committed to each other's development - but there's still a tension here between the need to accomodate unjust cultural factors in one's own life, vs. the need to fight against them.

Maybe this is a generational thing. Since I still have a decade or so before I think about children, I can afford to focus strictly on changing the cultural context in which I will make those decisions. And I do hope that future context does not include the description, well-meaning or not, of my career as a "gift" from my partner.

[mythago]

Hugo, I think you are too kind. It's not that this guy is (in a satirical way, so we can pretend he's being funny) saying his wife is full of domestic bliss. "Shut her down" is easy enough to accomplish, knowing that your wife will feel a greater responsibility towards kids and household, that social pressures fall on her and not you, and that most men can count on winning that game of 'chicken.'

[Amanda]

I hope I didn't come off as too harsh. I'm tired and it's whittled down my thoughts to the blunt language bone.

I do think two-income families have subverted the paradigmn, because the truth is that the person who pulls the purse strings has the power. In fact, I think it's safe to say that second wave feminism erupted because our society reached a tipping point of married women with jobs. Enough money got into the hands of women that they felt empowered.

[Trish Wilson]

I have to agree that the "opt out" applies only to well-off families. Most women, especially those in lower income brackets, simply do not have the ability to stay home because financially their families cannot afford it. They may and often do make great career sacrifices like turn down promotions and business travel because they also tend to take on primary care of the children (they can't be in two places at one time), but they can't outright quit. Their families cannot afford that kind of loss of income. I also don't think it's the husband's place to make sure his wife has the ability to relinquish her career to stay home with the children. That ends up being the case primarily because of money, and not all husbands earn enough for their wives to do that. Plus, an income that works well in one area is a pittance in other areas like Boston and San Francisco. I also don't agree that mothers are gatekeepers for their husbands regarding how involved husbands will be when it comes to proper childrearing. That is not mom's job to gatekeep.

[Trish Wilson]

One more point about my comment "I also don't think it's the husband's place to make sure his wife has the ability to relinquish her career to stay home with the children." I agree with Fred Vincy that this line of thinking assumes from the get-go that the care of the children is primarily mom's responsibility. It isn't and it shouldn't be. Dads have plenty of opportunities to take on their proper share of child care. If they are really serious about it, they will have to take on the career sacrifices taken by primary caregiving moms who forgo career advancement and higher salaries because they also need to take care of their children.

[cmc]

I always get a bit crazed when I come across the almost universal assumption that it should be the woman who must substantially curtail her contributions to public life in order to care for the children.

But I feel better when I reread a wonderful U.S. Supreme Court decision called Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs; that decision reminds me that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized the damage this assumption has done to women. Consider this excerpt:

". . . Congress [when enacting the gender neutral Family and Medical Leave Act] determined: 'Historically, denial or curtailment of women's employment opportunities has been traceable directly to the pervasive presumption that women are mothers first and workers second . . .' Stereotypes about women's domestic roles are reinforced by parallel stereotypes presuming a lack of domestic responsibilities for men. Because employers continued to regard the family as the woman's domain, they often denied men similar accommodations or discouraged them from taking leave. These mutually reinforcing stereotypes created a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination that forced women to continue to assume the role of primary family caregiver and fostered employers' stereotypical views about women's commitment to work and their value as employees . . ."

[Stephen]

"I always get a bit crazed when I come across the almost universal assumption that it should be the woman who must substantially curtail her contributions to public life in order to care for the children."

By this you mean that raising children is curtailing contributions to public life.

[cmc]

Stephen:

Yes, that is what I mean. I agree that raising children is important. I agree that raising children who grow up to be happy, healthy, well-adjusted, productive adults has an impact on society at large. I agree that raising children is just as important as practicing law, working in a factory, or starting a business. But raising children does not occur in the public sphere and (rightly or wrongly) raising children does not afford the stay at home mom or dad much influence in the community at large.

My comment was not directed at whether staying at home with kids is more valuable than going into the workforce. My point is that our culture tends to relegate us to either one type of contribution (labor force/public sphere) or another (raising kids/private sphere) depending on our gender. That cultural assumption touches a nerve with me because there are a lot of families where it makes more sense to have a different division of labor depending on the ambitions, inclinations, incomes, and other individuals factors of the people involved. That cultural assumption also has an adverse impact on childless women (because colleagues and employers may assume that such women will have children and leave their jobs), women who choose not to leave the workforce upon having children, and women who choose to leave the workforce but might not have done so but for that cultural assumption.

[Caitriona]

> Pretty classist. I don't have any friends nor can
> I think of any family of mine where women have
> really had the choice to "opt out". My mom finally
> has enough money, but with no children, there's no
> point. And that's it.
>
> It's nice to say that men should offer this to
> their wives, but no men I know have the means.
> You're veering very close to emasculating good
> men who are dedicated to their families who
> maybe are ashamed they can't support them all on
> their own.

I've found that the question has to do with priorities and values, rather than being classist. What are the things that are important to an individual family?

I know families who make it on one income, at $20,000; and I know families who can't make it on two incomes, at closer to $100,000. This is all in the same general region, similar costs of living.

The differences are primarily in what each family has decided is important. Do you have to have satellite/cable TV? Is it important to go out to eat X nights a week? Do you have to have the latest greatest gizmos?

What men need to offer to their wives, and what wives need to offer to their husbands, is friendship, support, and commitment to work together as a team. With that, they can prioritize. Not all women want to be SAHMs.

A lot of women get a look of horror on their faces when I tell them I'm a SAHM. It gets worse when I tell them we currently have 5 teenagers in the house, 2 of whom aren't our biological children. Women who don't feel they should be SAHMs usually *shouldn't*.

Neither they, nor their husbands, should feel pressured into being SAH parents. But by the same token, those who feel that one of the parents should be home shouldn't feel pressured by the status quo. Who cares if they don't have the latest, greatest, fanciest of everything? What's important is that they do what they feel is best for THEIR family.

People worry too much about what other people might think.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

And you, Caitriona, get the comment of the day award for this one.

[Tara]

Don't you find it just a little bit suspicious that every single one of your young professional family members has chosen to completely forego her career (at least temporarily) for her family? Every single one? Don't you wonder even a little whether things like husbands who assume that at least half the childcare and housework are theirs, workplaces that have subsidized daycare on site, and flexible working schedules might persuade even one or two of them to approach things a little differently?

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Tara, I'm with you -- I know that all of those things you mention could help make parenthood and career a better "both/and" experience for men and women.

[Lisa]

Hugo,
As always, I love your blog!

[La Lubu]

Caitriona, your comment rocks! Please come here often! (and do you have a blog?)

[Caitriona]

Stephen, in response to your comment, "(rightly or wrongly) raising children does not afford the stay at home mom or dad much influence in the community at large," I find myself wondering what sort of SAH parents you've known.

Why do people think that staying at home relegates one to some out-of-the-way closet with no interaction with the greater world? Any time I meet a SAH parent who is under the impression that s/he can't do anything other than be at home with the kids, s/he is usually going nuts for lack of interaction with others. I always advise getting out and getting involved. It's great for the kids, for the parents, for the family as a whole, and for the community at large. As a matter of fact, I am *much* more able to be involved with the community at large as a SAH parent than when I was working outside the home.

As a SAHM of teenagers, I've been on the local volunteer fire department (quit for health reasons but will be going back in an admin-only capacity - the one-armed-guy is twisting my arm again!), I've helped organize a local homeschooling organization, I'm involved in two larger regional homeschooling organizations, as a family we work on peace and justice issues in the local community with our church (it's Mennonite, Hugo), I volunteer as referee commissioner and board member with the recreational soccer league in which my kids play, I'm one of the club managers for my kids' 4-H club, and I work with international exchange students. I'm not the only SAH parent in our area doing community work of this sort. Two of the other soccer league board members are a WAHM and a SAHD, both of whom are greatly involved in the local schools and community services. I'm working on getting them both involved in the student exchange program.

You know, this "out-of-the-way closet with no interaction with the greater world" wears me out some days. ;-)