schweblog

The latest hubbub in the public arena of domestic affairs is over Caitlin Flanagan’s To Hell with All That: Loving and Loathing our Inner Housewife (the LA Weekly has a decent overview). In her book, Flanagan pays homage to the long-lost stay-at-home mother, praising them for parenting their children the “right” way while musing on the trauma of her own mother leaving to work when she was a child. The debate over the value of the stay-at-home mother–and the subsequent feminist controversy therein–seems to be something that is getting a lot more attention in the past few years.

I’ve debated the issue myself and have come upon a compromise that I’m fairly comfortable with. First of all, though, the obvious: I think you cannot debate that it is beneficial for a child to have a parent at home with them, especially in their formative years. In addition, I don’t think that women are any more suited than men to parent a child. I believe that one’s ability to raise a child is entirely a mode of their personality–their gender plays an insignificant role in parenting ability.

The context of the debates I’ve pursued, however, were not about the “traditional” family model or the suitability of women over men as caregivers. The problem that I’ve run into most is about maternity leave and the difficulty that a mother faces in trying to climb the corporate ladder while raising children. The typical argument goes that working mothers, in “taking care” of their children, cannot work as much overtime, travel as much, or spend as much “off-time” working as their male counterparts. Apparently, some people view this as unfair.

I have a hard time sympathizing with the woman who decided to become a mother and continue to pursue a career, though. In my eyes, the choice to have a child was made in light of the knowledge that it would affect her workplace performance and potential for advancement. I see no reason why she, as someone who chose to procreate, can justifiably expect benefits and promotions equal to those of her male and childless female counterparts.

By nearly every account I’ve encountered, child-rearing is an incredibly rewarding process: parents usually describe it as the most fulfilling, amazing pursuit that they’ve undertaken. Those that opt out of the lifestyle of a parent are presumably giving up something with potentially huge rewards. So why should the female that decides to have children have the playing field of employment leveled for her while she’s enjoying something that child-less people cannot? In short, I don’t think she should.

I’m not denying the presence of a glass ceiling in the workplace. I think women should be compensated on the level of their male coworkers for doing equal work. But a woman who has a child should not expect compensation equal to those that do more. I might find great satisfaction in doing community service. Likewise, it might produce a significant amount of benefit to my community for me to “give back” in such a way (similar to the claim that having a child “benefits” society in some way, which I am unconvinced of). However, if I take time off of work to do community service, I should not expect to advance at the same rate as my fellow employees who opt out of community service.

Women or men that decide to stay at home with their child are undoubtedly contributing to the psychological well-being of their kid and I applaud them. However, I think it unjustified and silly for them to expect workplace advancement opportunities equal to their full-time (or over-time, as the case may be) counterparts. You’re watching your own offspring grow up into functional human beings–that’s reward enough.