Matt Miller (NY Times Op-Ed) raises awareness about the challenges of pursuing your career while being a parent or while wanting to sustain a life outside of work. It is refreshing to hear about this old issue from a man's perspective. Here is an excerpt:
Here's the deal: this isn't a "women's" problem; it's a human problem. Yet for 30 years women have tried to crack this largely on their own, and one thing is clear: if the fight isn't joined by men (like me) who want a life, too, any solutions become "women's" solutions. A broader drive to redesign work will take a union-style consciousness that makes it safe for men who secretly want balance to say so.
Another Op-Ed in yesterday's NY Times by John Tierny argues that women are just less motivated than men to work in the most competitive jobs.
It's not fair to deny women a chance at those jobs, but it's not realistic to expect that they'll seek them in the same numbers that men will.
It may be that men flock to high-intensity jobs more than women, but is that the best thing for those men and their families? It is clear from Miller's article that not all men want these kind of jobs either.
If it seems that more men than women are "motivated" to work in intense jobs, it's only because women - in many cases - are conditioned against wanting them, feel they won't be successful, are left out of the boys' club once they're there (I worked on Wall Street), and/or can't find the work/family balance that's more of a pressure for women than for men.
Alternatively, men are conditioned to think that these are the jobs they want or need, but often are not personally or internally motivated in this direction - and frequently are unhappy. In neither scenario do I think this is biological pre-programming a la Summers (at Harvard).
Matt Miller has it right -- this is not a women's issue. It never has been and must cease to present itself as one. This is about families and LIFE beyond the office.
Posted by: LN | May 27, 2005 at 04:03 AM