In my previous post I talked about population decline and the brave new world we live in. Part of that discussion touched on women in the work force and the impact a woman choosing a career path has on the number of children she is likely to have, on population and on family. This part of the post actual came from a debate that took place between myself and a few other women on the issue of career versus family and why women had to choose between the two and men did not. Some of the women found it unreasonable and unfair that this should be the case. They argued that it was because of short sighted social attitudes and by extension a lack of effective social policy. Oh were it that simple! If only we could just throw a little public policy, and public money, and correct all the perceived injustices in our societies! But just because a segment of society perceives an injustice does that make something an injustice? Here are some examples of possible perceived injustices that my girlfriend Alane and I came up with that we might want to try and fix with a little social policy and public money.
- while people sunburn and black people don't (and if they do not nearly as quickly and it does not look nearly as bad)
- my daughter and husband have beautiful singing voices and I don't
- I know many people who are much faster runners than I am
- my friend Jocelyn is a much better cook than I am
- my friend Alane plays many musical instruments, she is gifted and I am not
- my sister is a wonderful painter and I am not
- I have several friends who have much more money than I do
- One of our friends is a multi millionaire.
- My friend Thea can knit a baptismal gown and I cannot
- I know people who speak five or more languages, I only speak three
- etc, etc, etc,
When talking about choices between career and family I only very briefly touched on something which I would now like to expound upon a little. I mentioned that one rarely sees male CEOs of companies who were also devoted, dedicated husbands and fathers. They may have a child or two but their lives are pretty much tied to their careers, because that is what it takes to be the best in any given career. This is the danger and, I believe, inevitable trapping of careerism.
Careerists are very different from those who are dedicated to being good at what they do. A careerist is someone who has come to define themselves by the success or failure of their career, for whom their career is their life! All that they do, all that they are is based on how well they succeed in their given career. In the end a careerist serves his/her career first, at the expense of all else, sometimes even life itself.
Our culture promotes this, it applauds this, it feeds this. How many times have you heard someone say, "my work is my life" "my career is my whole world." This is all is quite sad, and even sadder when the person saying it is a mother or father.
What is the purpose and end of work? Well depending on who you talk to there will be varying answers. I believe that the purpose and end of work has always been to provide for and care for your family and yourself. I think it is important that you get some satisfaction in the work you do, and I think that if you can find work that can be rewarding and enjoyable as well as provide for your family that is great. I am not advocating that we should suffer miserably and unnecessarily in our chosen profession, not at all. But I do think that once you are spending all of your quality time and energy devoting it to your profession at the expense of time spent nurturing and caring for your family you have allowed yourself to be dangerously side tracked into careerism.
Culturally we have lost sight of what is truly important, men and women alike. I think one of the reasons why a career seems so appealing to women is that they watch men virtually abandon their families for the sake of, greater career opportunities, public acclamation, peer adulation, more status, more money, etc, and with seemingly no consequences. People talk about how history remembers so and so, and their successes, and sometimes their failure. We talk about how so an so will be remembered in the annals of history for their great successes. But really who cares. Does it mean that the great historical figure has lead a better life than the person who fathered/mothered children to become good people who went on to have families who themselves were good and caring people and so on. Who really has the greater legacy?
Many of these great successful men have wives who have made a choice to stay home and care for their families so that their husbands can pursue their careers. And in some cases men have chosen to stay home with the children while their wives go out and pursue their careers. I would say that if it is unfair for a woman to be expected to stay home and essentially bring up her children by herself, it is just as much unfair for her to expect her husband to go it alone while she goes off to "fulfill herself" through her career.
It is a sad statement of how truly lost we are when we need a career to feel fulfilled. When we cannot find fulfillment it caring for our families, helping to guide our children, being companions and helpers to our mates. True fulfillment, I believe, can only be found in taking the time to commune with God and discern what he is calling you to. And that may very well be to a profession, but it certainly would not be to a professional life that would pull you away from your vocation as husband and father, or wife and mother.
So while it may seem unfair to some that women have to make the choice between career and family, as it may seem unfair that some people have green eyes while others do not, fairness really is not the issue is it? The issue I believe is truly about the difference between what we should do and what we want to do, what is best for our families as opposed to what seems best for our wants. Only in recent decades have we seen women have doors open to them, career opportunities made available to them, that have never been before and instead of taking the time to truly discern a life's vocation we have gone clamoring right behind so many men making all the same mistakes that they have been making. We are wanting to make many of the same selfish sacrifices. How unoriginal!
Who do you think is more fulfilled?
God Bless,
Dominique
Good bit of writing Dominique! I agree, that the way women are measured as successful is by how much they contribute to society, or by how much they can portray the image of 'having it all': husband, kids, job, etc. However, it is impossible to believe that a person can succeed in all areas. To really do well at anything, all effort must be devoted to it. Whether that is a career, hobby or vocation. To be the best mother one can be, all our time and effort needs to be devoted to that. To be the best painter, all our time and effort needs to be devoted to that. To be the best lawyer, architect, CEO etc, all our time and effort needs to be devoted to that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find truly sad, and so disheartening, is that the public in general view mothers, in particular stay-at-home mothers, as less successful. They are not recognized as contributing members of society in the way someone in the work force is. Our opinions seem to have less weight than a woman with a PhD or a high position in her job. Why is it that a mother is often judged as less intelligent or wise??? No wonder women are scrambling to find success in the business world. We get such little encouragement and acknowledgement for what we are doing.
But, even if our culture looks down on our vocation, we still need to keep our focus there. We need to find support from other mothers, and look to our children's smiling faces for encouragement! And, of course, ask the Perfect Mother, Our Lady, to guide us in our calling!!!
Thanks for you comments Daughter411. In the end we don't do it for the acknowlegement do we? In answering our vocation and giving it our all we are saying yes to God and that is the greatest reward. Knowing that we have been actively involved in God's plan for our families, in teaching our children their faith, in growing in our own as we reject the pull of our culture and embrace the Truth that transcends cultural shifts and norms, we are being in that way being true to ourselves. It is only in this way, I believe, that we can live what one young woman referred to as a "truly authentic" life. And absolutely inviting our lady into our lives and our journey will keep us on the right path.
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
Dominique
Lol, you do know who Daughter411 is, don't you Dominique??? Someone who recently knit something.....
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Well I do now! Lol! Giess the jokes on me eh!
ReplyDeleteok - I am going to try again (finally have decent internet! - will post the whole thing if I can - I wrote you back a document!!)
ReplyDeleteAs the person who mentioned the importance of more family-oriented social norms (culture) and social policy (which provides support, not a solution), I would like to contribute. The topic is interesting as always, and as always, I don't disagree with many things you say, but the article is not entirely clear to me, so I would like to ask where you would like it to go.
Are you arguing that even though people (men and women) work (and even might enjoy it) that they should nevertheless prioritize the family? (if so - good point, totally agree)
Or are you arguing that women in particular have not prioritized the family and therefore, even though they work, they should do so (I am not sure this is the case all the time - some women are like this but I suspect most are not)
And then you seem to have multiple sub-themes . . . Are you arguing, as a result of the question of prioritization, that women should have to choose between career or family? (in the interest of prioritization/unfairness question), and does this mean that you would suggest women who choose a career should not have a family?
Or are you arguing that women should in fact choose (or be strongly encouraged to) to only focus on having a family (do not become a careerist)?
As well, are you arguing that women who chose to have a career are inevitably careerists?
In addition, what are your assumptions? One of your many departure points is the reducing population issue. Are you assuming that if women chose to become stay-at-home mothers, that they will have more children (ideally more than 2 so as to gain "replacement" value)? Upon what evidence is this assumption based, that most stay-at-home mothers will chose to have more than 2 children?
To get into some specifics, I will pull out some quotes and respond.
You stated:
"They argued that it was because of short sighted social attitudes and by extension a lack of effective social policy. Oh were it that simple! If only we could just throw a little public policy, and public money, and correct all the perceived injustices in our societies!"
No, in fact, social policy and public money do not correct all the perceived injustices in our societies. In fact, legal reform (policy) can do little if the social norms do not follow. You highlight this well by saying:
"Our culture promotes this, it applauds this, it feeds this."
Yes, I agree. Particularly North American culture. I think I have mentioned this somewhere before, but when I lived still in Canada I was told directly that if I had more than one child I pretty much put my career on the chopping block - most academic women in Canada at that time were either not having children at all, or having just one. This is not the case at least in (where do I live? Shangrila?) Norway, where the issue of how many kids you have is a non-starter. not relevant. This is supported by social policy, but the norms (culture) here is very different towards family. Shockingly, this society is very family oriented. Very. It is a part of the culture. (Norway is by no means a panacea or a shangrila, but it supports family better than does Canada, hands down)
And part II . .. . ;-)
ReplyDeleteTo quote again:
"Careerists are very different from those who are dedicated to being good at what they do. A careerist is someone who has come to define themselves by the success or failure of their career, for whom their career is their life!"
Clearly there are some people who look at their career this way - but what are you saying with this? that most people with careers are careerists? that most women with careers are careerists? that just by having a career one becomes a careerist?
Because right afterwards you seem to acknowledge the importance of work outside of the home (for men and women alike), but wish that more would still ensure that the family was prioritized (again, agree):
"the purpose and end of work has always been to provide for and care for your family and yourself. I think it is important that you get some satisfaction in the work you do, and I think that if you can find work that can be rewarding and enjoyable as well as provide for your family that is great. I am not advocating that we should suffer miserably and unnecessarily in our chosen profession, not at all."
But for some reason we jump from the recognition that people have jobs/professions to provide for their families to people having jobs/professions to become some great historical figure??
"public acclamation, peer adulation, more status, more money, etc," and "We talk about how so an so will be remembered in the annals of history for their great successes." - and you follow by saying, but really, “who cares?”
You are right - really, WHO??? who is it you are talking about here? Amongst all the people you know who are working, who among them thinks realistically or even aspires to these great things you are writing about? Who among these people are being so publicly recognized, and getting accolades and such?? Do you really think this is a realistic assessment of why people enter into professions? A few might think this way, but really - most people? and if so, where is the evidence of this?
And so back to the family and what mom and dad are up to:
"I would say that if it is unfair for a woman to be expected to stay home and essentially bring up her children by herself, it is just as much unfair for her to expect her husband to go it alone while she goes off to "fulfill herself" through her career."
Yes, agreed! Why does it have to be the one or the other? Is it not acceptable then to let parents find the balance that suits them best? Some might chose, together, that mom stays home, or that dad does, or whatever. Parents should find family solutions that support and prioritize their family in the way that they feel reflects their wishes for their family. Should they not be allowed to do so?
(and the final part is coming)
and part III (you see, I take this seriously!!! your posts are very worthy of comment and discussion!!)
ReplyDeletecontinued:
Now THIS was interesting:
"True fulfillment, I believe, can only be found in taking the time to commune with God and discern what he is calling you to. And that may very well be to a profession, but it certainly would not be to a professional life that would pull you away from your vocation as husband and father, or wife and mother."
Does this mean that even if God calls you towards something (a calling, a profession, whatever we might want to call it), it nevertheless should not be prioritized over our roles as father and mother? Yeah -I can go with that, was just a bit surprised, because who do we conclude with . . . . Mother Teresa!
Your penultimate careerist!!! She chose career over family (never had children to the best of my knowledge), and her career was her life!! - yes, it was good work, probably a calling from God, but nevertheless . . . and even more, she became famous!!! A historical figure!! And if we all aspire to be mother Teresa, you can count on the population dropping drastically.
It is a very good point to argue that family should not be forgotten, and even more that family should be prioritized. But it seems that you want to say something else.
The underlying problem you seem to want to address, as I read it, is not the fact that family is not prioritized by women or by both parents (because actually, in most cases, most parents working or staying at home are still good parents and have a good family life), but that you live in a culture that largely rejects the choice of being a stay-at-home mother. Your choice is not valued, you are under-appreciated for what you do. You state in another comment that you don’t do what you do for acknowledgement – but what is this blog really about? Is it not about actually appreciating the role of mother? In other words, acknowledging and appreciating the work that mothers do.
And in that, I agree with you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying using some interesting trends that I notice in our current culture, not just Norht America but the majority of the industrialized world, is that there is far less of a focus on family as a priority. No one can deny that size of family over the last one hundred years has shrunk significantly in the industrialized world. More people are having fewer children. That is a fact!
ReplyDeleteThere is a correlation between the level of a woman's education, the age at which she starts a family, whether or not she choses to have a career and the size of the family. That is a fact. It is so because she is the one who bares, nurses, and is the primary care giver to that child for at least the first year. Men don't have this same attachment to a child, they cannot get pregnant, they don't go through menapause, the don't have a "biological clock" with the same limits as woment do. That is a fact.
I find it interesting but am not a statistition so will not attempt to make a statistical analysis of this correlation. I simply find it interesting in light of some of the reading I have been doing.
I believe that keeping a family whole, living a life PRIMARILY focused on the family is a better way to bring up children who will also hold these values. And I think that a culture dedicated to selflessness and a devotion to be interested in care for the other is a good.
Mother Theresa was not the "penultimate careerist" as you put it. She did not chose career over family she had a "vocation" which is different than being a careersit. One serves God and people first the other serves itself and oneself first. At least that is how I see it and how I meant it in the post. Mother Theresa served God first and for God she served the poor and the downtrodden at much hardship for herself. Did she experience some satisfaction from her work. Yes, but only insofar as she was serving God. She had many moments of doubt in her life but never stopped doing what she was doing because she believed that this was God's work and she was "serving" God's forgotten.
In the end I truly believe that spouse and family should come second only to God, ever! :)
I hope this clears up any confusion about what I was saying and the point I was trying to make.
God Bless,
Dominique
True, most people (in the western world) are having fewer children than for 100 years ago. FAmily situations were different, in part because women were for the most part not even recognized as human beings under the law in most of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree, women's physiologies say a lot about when and how many babies a woman can have, and that it makes therefore a difference when a woman starts having children (you and I in fact started having children at the same age roughly I think? Or you were even a year old than I?).
But - no. Still not clear. In your advocacy of prioritizing the family, are you saying women should not get educated and/or have careers?
(btw - I actually would never all Mother Theresa a "careerist", but according to your definition she falls into that category - she indeed gave her life to her career. That you call it instead a vocation - career, job, vocation, profession, whatever - she worked and gave her life to it. It was good work, but nevertheless, according to this definition.... maybe adjust the definition then . . . . ? If you are going to invent a word you have to expect adjustments along the way ;-))
No.
ReplyDeleteMother Theresa did not have a career of a job.
There is a clear distinction, which I have already made, between careerism and vocation.