My issue with the mother-in-law solution is that is perpetuates the child-rearing matriarchy. Children remain in the province of women.
And this may not in and of itself a bad thing, but it also ends up being another way that the men in our lives can be let off the hook. So I think it's a false choice, in a way: another red herring with which we distract ourselves. Add it to the list of stay-at-home-mom vs working-mom, breastfeeding vs bottlefeeding, or many of the other ways we distract ourselves from the true issue: women continue to do the large part of the work in the home, whatever else they are also doing.
Until (if?) that becomes a more egalitarian division, it will be very difficult for women to achieve as much outside the home as their partners. Until (if?) both partners defer advancement, or demand employment leave, or in other ways support each other during the demanding years of childbearing, women will continue to feel forced to defer accomplishments on one front or the other.
Thus, children or the Supreme Court? What a tough choice, and not really a fair one. Don't most of us want some part of both? Isn't that where most of our modern woman angst comes from?
And we know it's possible - many men get to keep a foot in both their career and domestic worlds. What would happen if we demanded a fair return?
All of this comes with the usual caveat that this particular discussion, as always, only pertains to the upper socioeconomic class of women, generally, and is thus less powerfully relevant. And of course, with all due respect to the life choices Judge Sotomayor may or may not have made. She is an amazing role model.
My issue with the mother-in-law solution is that is perpetuates the child-rearing matriarchy. Children remain in the province of women.
And this may not in and of itself a bad thing, but it also ends up being another way that the men in our lives can be let off the hook. So I think it's a false choice, in a way: another red herring with which we distract ourselves. Add it to the list of stay-at-home-mom vs working-mom, breastfeeding vs bottlefeeding, or many of the other ways we distract ourselves from the true issue: women continue to do the large part of the work in the home, whatever else they are also doing.
Until (if?) that becomes a more egalitarian division, it will be very difficult for women to achieve as much outside the home as their partners. Until (if?) both partners defer advancement, or demand employment leave, or in other ways support each other during the demanding years of childbearing, women will continue to feel forced to defer accomplishments on one front or the other.
Thus, children or the Supreme Court? What a tough choice, and not really a fair one. Don't most of us want some part of both? Isn't that where most of our modern woman angst comes from?
And we know it's possible - many men get to keep a foot in both their career and domestic worlds. What would happen if we demanded a fair return?
All of this comes with the usual caveat that this particular discussion, as always, only pertains to the upper socioeconomic class of women, generally, and is thus less powerfully relevant. And of course, with all due respect to the life choices Judge Sotomayor may or may not have made. She is an amazing role model.