There's a saying in the black community that nothing really happens in the world until it happens to someone who's white, because that's when the media will finally take notice. Back in the 1970s when the feminist revolution was supposedly reaching full throttle, my mother and her friends, who were a group of well-educated black career women, used to wonder what all the fuss was about. They were pediatricians, veterinarians, or they owned their own businesses, and they were the wives of doctors, dentists and executives. They worked before marriage, after marriage, after giving birth, through graduate school until their careers were firmly established, and they didn't do it because of some newfangled feminist consciousness. As my mother put it, "I don't see what all the fuss is about! We've been working for years."

After wading through the surprisingly tired clichés about marriage and the workplace spouted by Belkin's not-so-representative sample (women who are "not yet engaged" and turn down "fabulous offers from law firms back home" after finishing law school but relocate with their men anyway!) I'm sure I was as angry as my mother was almost 30 years ago. There's nothing "revolutionary" about quitting your job to stay at home with the kids while your husband is the sole earner. My mother did it in the 1960s while transitioning from pursuing a career as a classical musician to a master's degree in social work and a career in nonprofits.

Privileged women will always have options. (Isn't that the whole point of being privileged?) It's nice for them but it's nothing new, and it does not mean much outside of the tight little world in which they live.

-- Kathie Foley

The hidden premise behind those women who opted to "opt out" of careers is never mentioned, and that is that they are all married to hardworking, highly paid husbands. In other words, work for them is merely for fun and self-fulfillment. This is not the case of most women today, not in most classes. Most of them work because if they did not, the standard of living of the family would be substantially lower. They have no "opt out" option because there just wouldn't be enough money in the family without their wage or salaried labor.

Many of the women in that article seemed horrified at the brutality of the work world. Not one questioned if any man should be subjected to it either. Perhaps reform is needed on all levels, and not only for one of the two sexes. The "opt outers" seemed quite content to have their husbands slog it out each day while they take care of their children in pristine luxury. Did they have anything to say about their husbands' contribution to their serenity? I think not.

In spite of all the discussion and rhetoric of the past three decades, the United States has never in reality embraced the notion of egalitarian relations between the sexes. It is precisely the upper- and upper-middle-class feminists who, at the end of the day, want their men to treat and support them in the style of life for which they are accustomed -- like princesses.

-- Arthur C. Hurwitz

I think there is less disagreement between Joan Walsh and Lisa Belkin than Walsh's piece suggests. Part of that is due to the general incoherence of Belkin's thesis. But as I see it, both articles are saying that many women's life goals differ from the traditional male role. That is, some women find that they don't want to climb the corporate ladder and strive in the manner necessary to reach the heights in that arena during their childbearing years.

Both articles also hint at a solution: change the work environment so that it is more receptive to those women's goals. Walsh has found such a workplace, as has Belkin. More attention should be paid to this. Employers should be encouraged (financially and otherwise) to provide flexible times and places for jobs (and not just to women). The rewards for the women and men who have these jobs is obvious, and employers gain too, because they can utilize the talents of women like Belkin's subjects, while they would not be able to in a more traditional environment. To the extent that both Belkin's and Walsh's pieces promote discussion and consideration of such changes, they complement each other and are both worthy.

-- Lisa Rosenthal

I read Joan Walsh's article with a great sense of relief. As a well-educated white woman in her 30s, married but with no kids yet, I thought that the Times piece was horrifyingly retro and very limited in scope.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with staying home to raise your children, but Belkin implied that her subjects' (and perhaps her own) choices were both the new trend and the best options. Yeah, no one can have it all, but that doesn't mean that mothers shouldn't aim high, too. I'd like to vote for a female candidate for high office someday. And I wouldn't be surprised if she was someone's mom.

-- Katie Winograd

Recent Stories