contrary commentary

Interestingly, the CBC show "The Contrarians" did a special on feminism today. After yesterday's post, I'm all about this stuff. Not the "feminist stuff" exactly, but rather looking into the choices available to women, the choices available to families. All this talk about individual callings and passions, and marriage and children...well, it's things to think about. Not that Andrew and I are looking to have children right away. But one day we will. And I want to be aware of my own desires and passions when it comes to my career and my children.

The Contrarians highlighted Professor Alison Wolf of the University of London who recently wrote an interesting article. And granted, she acedemic-alizes the issue, but makes some good points. Her main point is that our society places a higher value on those things that fall within an economic discourse (excuse the term): career, pay raises, salaries, etc.

The plethora of careers available to educated women today is amazing: anything their male counterparts do, women are welcome to do as well. Previously, well-educated, driven women would enter the workforce as teachers, governesses and nurses. Now, women of that description become CEOs, doctors, accountants, professors and lawyers. And as they do so, they have less children. Increasingly, Wolf suggests, our society provides disincentives to childbearing so much so that the disincentives

have become so high for upper-middle income families that the puzzle is not why professional women have so few children but why they have any at all. ...No society until recent times has expected love alone to support the family enterprise. To put it another way, parental love has never cost so much.

Wolf sheds light on the value we place on work done in the home. I agree with her when she notes,

[F]eminists and economists share the blame. For the feminist, unpaid home-based activity is labour performed under the lash of patriarchy. For the economist, unpaid work does not contribute to GNP and so does not exist.

Here we have a problem: we value work that has a dollar sign attached to it, and the work a stay-at-home parent completes doesn't fit the bill. Additionally, kids are getting more expensive. Our continued emphasis on the best education (which aims to create the best kind of productive, self-sufficient individual) mandates high-priced schools, tutoring, additional experiential learning and, throughout the process, the College Fund. Never before has our society seen such a huge inverse relationship between childbearing and education. This is not to say I don't value education, didn't love my undergrad, or am not continuing on the education track. It's merely to suggest that our society somehow has to re-evaluate what we value and find a way to make babies, the home, family and career work a little better.

Wolf notes that she herself was engaged in full time work out of the home while co-parenting her little ones with an also full-time working husband. She notes that she loved her job and was probably much happier working outside of the home than she would have been had she been a stay-at-home-mom. But she asks, "were my children happier because I worked outside the home?" And also, "was society better because I worked outside the home?"

Now those are interesting questions. Our society values a traditional upbringing that rears children with good manners, who listen to their elders, and eventually grow into adults, but we don't value the people who provide that upbrining.

Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing. The repercussions for our futures are enormous, and we should at least recognize this fact. This has brought enormous benefits.

What to do with all this information, I'm not sure. But as societal commentary goes, Wolf has hit the proverbial nail on the head.