Working Mothers and the Myth of Having It All - Essay Example

Working Mothers and the Myth of Having it All The family structure can be accurately described as a social unit designed primarily to nurture the needs of children. When the mother, whose historic role in society is the nurturer within the family unit, enters the workforce, the dynamics within that structure changes, some would argue for the worse though others would disagree. Four year-old Traci’s mom went to work following a divorce and now she attends the local daycare from early morning until evening. Traci’s three year-old neighbor Johnny remains at home all day with his stay-at-home mom. Some believe Traci is at the disadvantage because her early childhood is unstable, her formative years spent being one of the herd instead of being ‘properly’ cared for in a loving home environment. Traci will soon contract the dreaded ‘latch-key’ disease, become involved with drugs and sex at an early age and will end up homeless and miserable as an adult. Johnny, on the other hand, will likely finish college and lead a happy, healthy, ‘normal’ life with a house in the suburbs, a loving wife, a dog and 2.2 children. This scenario fits the perception of many, including myself prior to completing the following research, regarding working mothers and the resulting effects on the family. The evidence, however, refutes this erroneous assumption. Although it does seem true that working mothers cannot have it all, that does not necessarily prevent them from having much and should not be used as an argument to make working mothers feel guilty about the need to work. According to the myth, the chaos of juggling a career and a family provides unique, otherwise unattainable training and inspiration to becoming a better career women and a better mother at one and the same time. This idea is refuted not only by common sense – how can the stress and worry of a high-powered career possibly help a mother also deal with the stress and worry of the family – but by statistics reported in the Harvard Business Review article entitled “Corporate Women and the Myth of Having it All” (2002). According to this article, fully half of all ultra-achieving career women (defined as those who earn more than $100,000 per year) who are above the age of 41 remain childless as compared to the 19 percent of men in the same position (over age 41 in ultra-achieving careers). This is perhaps explained by the disparity among their spouses. While most highly successful men are reported in this article to be married to women with lower career goals, most career women are married to men who have equal or greater career goals. Finally, the article also indicates that almost 90 percent of high-achieving women feel it is possible, safe and preferable to become pregnant well into their 40s, providing them with both the high-powered career they’ve dreamed of as well as the family they’ve postponed; however, only about 3-5 percent of them are successful in achieving a natural, healthy birth. At the same time, the days when Mrs. Cleaver represented the norm has been gone for almost as long as the television show in which she was featured. Since that time, American families have increasingly needed two incomes to survive. For the vast majority of mothers, going to work every day while leaving their children with surrogate moms is clearly not a matter of choice as some have suggested. Today, more than a quarter of all American kids reside in homes containing one parent, usually the mother, who must work to support the family. Of the women who work in two-parent homes, more than 80 percent have spouses who receive $30,000 per year or less (Peters, 1997). A mother’s choice in many cases is to either allow their children to live in abject poverty or to go to work. Though among the minority, some working mothers have chosen (rather than been forced) to continue their career pursuits following childbirth but in either case, the workplace is seldom conducive to the family concerns of mothers, or fathers for that matter. Seldom do employers allow a mother to take a year or two off to care for small children without sacrificing position or employment status and are generally upset when mom is often called away to attend matters concerning a child. The choices are hard for mothers. The unsympathetic attitudes towards working mothers among both some factions of the public and most employers are not constructive nor aligned with reality. This suggests that the problem is not necessarily inherent in whether or not the mom works, but is instead bound up in the attitudes of the Western corporate structure in which proper care of family is considered bad for business. Some believe that the label ‘good mother’ implies one that dutifully fills her societal role by remaining home with the children. This belief is based solely on preconceived and outdated stereotypes and not on prevalent scientific data which indicates that children whose mothers work are unharmed by this common state of affairs. Other factors such as stress levels within the family affect a child’s psychological, emotional and social development more so than whether or not the mother is at home during the day. It seems to be a non-factor development-wise. “A child who is emotionally well adjusted, well loved, and well cared for will thrive regardless of whether the mother works outside the home” (“Working Mothers”, 1999). In fact, mothers who are successful at managing the responsibilities of both work and home do manage to provide an outstanding role model that children respect, admire and emulate. Children raised in homes where the mother works outside the home are often more responsible, independent and goal-oriented as adults. In these families, every member must play an active position in daily activities of the household. The kids are much more inclined, by necessity, to act more responsibly with regards to household chores and caring for siblings. The working mother feels more valued and garners more support by her family as well. In families where the woman desires a life outside the home but is compelled by guilt or coercion to stay at home instead, stresses within the family often occurs. Resentments arise with concern to money, the lack of it or how it is spent and who decides; the breadwinner or the trapped-at-home mom. In homes where both parents work and the mother does not feel enslaved by her husband, children or social expectations, the children could likely live in a less stressful home situation. This advantageous developmental environment coupled with a greater sense of responsibility gained by necessity suggests that children may ultimately profit when two parents are present in the household and both work (“Working Mothers”, 1999). When mothers work, the father is often forced to be more involved in the children’s lives as well which adds to the overall experience of the cohesive family unit. Dad and the kids have a closer relationship when mom is employed. Men in this situation are usually more supportive of the working mother on an emotional level than he may have otherwise been which the children notice and perpetuate as adults. A combination approach to care-giving, in which both the mother and the father take an active role, can be even more positive for children than the scenario in which the mom stays at home with her little one full-time. “Little kids want to be with their parents because we make them feel safe, whole and happy, not because they admire our professional achievements” (Lupton, 2006). When they are kept safe, are entertained, protected, soothed when upset or hurt and otherwise provided with the food and nurturing that is necessary for a healthy child, it makes little difference to the child whether that care comes from the mother or the father, only that it is provided by someone who will continue to return to provide this warm, safe feeling again and again – even if that person goes away at times to tend to career concerns. The evidence and theories which demonstrate children suffer no harms resulting from being raised by working mothers per se are further validated by examining specific differences in the developmental progress of children in both working and non-working mother families. Studies have concluded that children who lived in impoverished conditions and whose mother worked, whether in one or two-parent families, were found to have superior socio-emotional and cognitive aptitude levels than impoverished children of stay-at-home moms. These studies are consistent with other research that has demonstrated similar disparities based on both socio-economic conditions and gender. For example, the daughters of working mothers are more committed to and enjoy greater academic and career successes and are more likely to choose nontraditional occupations. Sons of working mothers are less inclined to formulate traditional outlooks regarding gender-roles. “In our study, the children of employed mothers obtained higher scores on the three achievement tests, for language, reading, and math, across gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status, middle-class boys included. It was our most robust findings for the child outcome differences” (Hoffman, 1998). When examining lower-class families specifically, it was found that working mothers in this group generally felt more fulfilled and self-satisfied than non-working mothers, feelings which translate to a more positive outlook on life thus a happier, healthier home environment for the children. Middle-class working mothers expressed about the same level of fulfillment and self-satisfaction as did middle-class stay-at-home moms. “While the quality and stability of non-maternal care for infants and young children is important, the mother’s employment itself does not seem to have the negative effects often proclaimed” (Hoffman, 1998). Whether a mother works or not does not seem to have a great impact either way on the overall welfare of the children. As I have discovered, there are advantages to both situations. How the family adapts to either situation as well as the approach taken by the cooperation of the parents remain the key elements to the success or failure of the family unit. As with many other human issues, it is a two-edged sword in many instances. Traci suffers separation anxiety when dropped off at the daycare and is exposed to other children’s bad habits and diseases but in the long-term, is a more socialized child which will serve her well as an adult. When she receives love and attention from both of her parents, who are themselves loved and appreciated by each other and equal halves of a unified whole, she retains a strong sense of self-worth, a positive outlook for the future and an idea of how she, too, might break the gender divide in terms of appropriate roles and responsibilities. I have learned through this study that children of working mothers in single parent homes are generally more focused and goal-oriented when their mothers work and still manage to provide a loving environment and that fathers are more involved with the children in two-parent homes. Wally and Beaver may actually have been better served if June had found a job. Works Cited Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. “Executive Women and the Myth of Having it All.” Harvard Business Review. April 1, 2002. Hoffman, Lois Wladis. “The Effects of the Mother’s Employment on the Family and the Child.” Parenthood Magazine. (1998). Lupton, Ellen. “The Myth of the Working Mom.” AIGA. March 25, 2008 Peters, Joan K. When Mothers Work: Loving Our Children Without Sacrificing Ourselves. New York: Perseus Books, 1997. “Working Mothers.” Caring for Baby and Young Child: Birth to Age 5. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, Bantam, 1999. March 25, 2008 Read More