A recent study found that academics are less likely than doctors or lawyers (i.e. other professions requiring years of training) to have kids, and the gap is bigger for women. There are a lot of things that could explain this - professors tend to be more liberal and less religious; although doctors and lawyers require a lot of training, it’s still a longer road for academics since it’s not just grad school but the six years of working toward tenure that tend affect the ability to settle down and have kids; while academia offers great flexibility (which would presumably make it easier to juggle work and kids), that flexibility also makes professors highly independent and we quickly get used to being able to do what we want, when we want (the economist way to put it is that the opportunity cost, in terms of loss of independence, is greater for academics). And having a traditional family and house-in-the-burbs lifestyle is not necessarily the norm for academics so there’s far less pressure to follow that path (which, by the way, is one of the things I love about being an academic!). But of course, as one of the comments over on InsideHigherEd points out, the key question is whether being an academic is incompatible with parenthood, or whether the type of people who become academics are less likely to want kids?
The question of why academics, particularly women, have fewer kids is not trivial because it affects whether we see this as a problem (which implies it needs fixing), or simply an interesting empirical correlation. But even if there is something about academia that makes it harder for women who want kids to have them, does that alone suggest changes should be made? This is one of those areas that I really struggle with as a feminist and an economist. The feminist in me wants to say that women should be able to have it all; the economist in me knows that there are always trade-offs. The feminist in me wants to say that no women should be discouraged from doing what she wants professionally because she also wants kids; the economist in me believes that if having kids is more important to some people than others, then those women should choose jobs that allow them to have the life they want, rather than requiring the jobs (including bosses and co-workers) to accommodate the women. And of course, the idealist in me wants to live in a world where no matter what your decision, you are supported, not judged for it…
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Academia, parenthood and hard choices
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is an interesting issue - what factors do women take into account when deciding whether to have children or not? I've read some research that shows that the higher educated a woman is, the less likely she is to have children.
I think that there are many people choosing not to have kids and for many people, choosing to be childfree is there ideal choice. However, for other women, issues around discrimination for women with children, the obstacles that having children throws up for women may mean that women who actually would like children don't go down that route.
Personally, as a feminist, I think that it is one of feminism's great failings - to address the discrimination against women with children and the inequality of child-care between men and women.
Also, on my Childrenornot blog, I recently talked about a post from Grad Mommy who looked at the issue for graduate students of when is the best time to have children or not?
Thanks Beth - I think the timing issue is particularly problematic for academics because there is usually a definitive timeline that can be dangerously misleading (I'll just wait until I'm done with the dissertation, I'll just wait until I get tenure - oops, now I'm too old!). I also agree completely that the gender inequality in child-care means that men and women simply don't face the same trade-offs. I'm actually really grateful that I've always been pretty sure that I don't want kids, as it saves me from having to make these sorts of choice...
Post a Comment