What I want is for men to have the real opportunity to be child rearers in our society. This means that if I had the choice between expanding maternity leave for mothers and acquiring paternity leave for fathers who are not full time caretakers, I'd vote for the fathers.
It means that if I had a choice between reducing stigma for women who take years off to rear children, and reducing the stigma for men to take time off at all to rear children, I'd vote for the men. Of course most women will opt to take time off to take care of kids; the option to take time off is rarely available to the man, if he has a wife that appears to be functional. It's not always actually available, and even if policies dictate otherwise, it's rarely socially available.
So really, I want men to have the same opportunities as women.
Now, as regular readers know, I want to be a law professor. An event which (tragically, perhaps) first requires me to attend law school. Knowing my social skills, if I end up meeting someone whom I feel enough for to get married, it will probably be there. And since the odds of finding another future law professor seems astronomical, I can very easily see myself marrying what one of my Georgetown friends lovingly refers to as (and aspires to become) "a corporate whore." In which case, I'd probably be the guy staying at home--that guy who would benefit from what Ms. Bond is talking about. So yeah, it'd be nice.
So, is there stigma? Well, I don't really know, since for me it's still all speculative at this point. I've told a few people (mostly female) that I'd be willing to be a stay-at-home dad with no ill results. But still, there is that expectation of being the big macho breadwinner (and we all know how macho law professors are seen in today's society). Furthermore, a law professor is a job that probably would be effected least by taking some time off or reduced time to raise children (most schools now, or so I hear, will delay tenure review in these cases). But writing and researching is something I can do from home (I may be underestimating the distracting powers of stopping a two year old from choking to death on a grape). Finally, I'll admit some degree of semi-sleazy quid pro quo at work here--I'm willing to be a stay-at-home dad because in doing so I'll have the opportunity to be a professor and still get all the financial perks of being a lawyer. If, by some miracle of societal intervention, I met someone who wasn't going to be a lawyer (or some similarly high-power hyper-job) I might re-evaluate my stance. In other words, I'm willing to be the primary care-giver, but I don't necessarily desire it. Does that make me a bad person? Probably. But if I was a good person, I wouldn't want to attend law school at all, now would I?
1 comment:
Hi, from someone who already went to law school, and is now 'at home' taking care of small children.
No, you will not be able to keep researching and working while at home with kids. Yes, you underestimate what it takes to keep a small child from injuring itself. Let alone fed, clean, changed, entertained and nurtured. All day long, day after day.
That is what is so hard about staying at home. A man I know recently volunteered to stay at home with his infant, figuring he would work on his grants (he's a medical researcher). Didn't get any work done on any of them. It is impossible to figure out why that is before you do it, but it is.
That is why it is harder than it looks for professional women-or men-to be at home. It's great, but it is hard.
I'm glad those young women acknowledge they might want to stay with their children. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the fact its hard to get back into the working world (it's not that welcoming) once you want to go back.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Hope college is treating you well. I had a wonderful time then. (Also went to a small private college; best thing ever.)
Post a Comment