According to the Pew Research report, in the 18-34 age group:
Two-thirds (66%) of young women ages 18 to 34 rate career high on their list of life priorities, compared with 59% of young men. In 1997, 56% of young women and 58% of young men felt the same way.
In the 35-64 age group:
Today about the same share of women (42%) and men (43%) ages 35 to 64 say [that being successful in a high-paying career or profession is "one of the most important things" or "very important" in their lives]. In 1997, more middle-aged and older men than women felt this way (41% vs. 26%).
So women today are more ambitious than we were 15 years ago. (Although the 56-58% of ambitious young 'uns, men and women, in 1997 has now decreased to 42-43% now that we've hit middle age. Maybe we're letting go of some illusions about our likely level of success.)
And, at least from this data:
- One generation ago, men were significantly more ambitious than women.
- In my generation, women and men have roughly the same levels of ambition.
- Among young people today, women are more ambitious than men.
I wish they had left "high-paying" out of the equation. I think it skews the numbers down. I'm sure there were respondents who care about being successful in their careers, but not necessarily about being highly paid.
The WSJ Juggle blog follows up on the article with anecdata about how women who have an economic choice tend to be powerful full-time-plus professionals or stay-at-home moms, but there's not much in between. The author guesses that women who can afford it generally decide to go big or go home -- if work isn't going to be successful, challenging, and fulfilling, then they're not going to sacrifice the time they could be spending with their families. I'm not convinced, but it's an interesting point.
I'm extremely not convinced about that. Isn't that what the whole "mommy track" discussion is about? Those are women with a choice.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that "high-paying" was a mistake. I would have said that being successful in a high-paying career is only "somewhat important," but if they'd used the 1978 question, "meaningful career," I'd say "one of the most important" things in my life.
Well, I think it may partly be an economic choice. In order to exceed your costs of child care (if your kids are little), you'd better go big or go home. I have two good friends who were award winning teachers who had to quit when kid #2 came along, because child care costs ate up virtually all of their take home salary. Even once the kids go to school all day, you have to have some kind of program for afternoons and summers.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I don't think the moms the WSJ is referring to in that post would consider teachers to be "high-achieving professionals." I think they'd consider teaching, nonprofits, government, etc. to be "scaled-back careers" because they work in a paradigm where working 40 hours a week is kind of unprestigious and icky. I'm exaggerating a bit, but the key was that post was that they were quoting a Wall Street exec about her kid's classmates' moms. If it was an expensive private school, that might explain very well why doing something other than being a law partner or doctor would be seen derisively as "middling career with average success."
ReplyDeleteThat's unfortunate that some teachers quit at kid 2 because of the finances, but obviously many teachers have kids and make it work because it's a very family-friendly job. Like a lot of things, it probably depends on the other income in the house, if there is one.
Yes, that post definitely set up a dichotomy between "corporate executive/investment banker" and "stay-at-home mom," and the phrasing of the "high-paying" successful job echoes that. I still think the stats are interesting about how priorities have changed, but that's a major flaw.
ReplyDeleteRG: True. But I think people don't pay enough attention to the long-term effect of their choice to stay home on their career and lifetime salary. It may be that teachers have an easier time returning to work. For me, I can't imagine that if I stayed home for a few years while my kids were young, I would be able to easily return to work. So even if childcare consumed my entire salary, maybe even plus a little, I'd consider it a long-term investment to still have a job a few years later, and at a higher salary than I would have if I'd taken that offramp. If it were easier to jump back into the job market at the same level that you left it, I would definitely think a lot harder about staying home for several years while the kids are young.