i’ve long ago read the harvard business review article, “corporate women and the myth of having it all” (thanks, karen!), but refrained from blogging about it at the time, lacking the terms that are PC enough. but heck, out with it! this blog is getting full of jan-i-mania, i’ve got to blog about something else before he gets overexposed, haha!

the article was quite lengthy but concise; every single paragraph was really informative. and, it was based on facts and figures. in brief, the paper points out the glaring reality that women simply CANNOT run a family and a highly demanding career (top management levels) at the same time, and for women to believe otherwise is just foolish. some points of interest lifted from the article:

* 49% of ultra-achieving career women (earning more than $100,000) ages 41-55 are childless; a mere 19% of their male colleagues are. apparently, men do not have to consider trading of having children with their careers.

* generally, highly sucessful men are married to less career-driven women, while 9 out of 10 high-achieving women are married to equally succesful men. do i smell machismo?

* 89% of high-achieving women believe they will be able to get pregnant deep into their 40s, lulling themselves into an illusion that they can prevaricate childbearing until their careers are more established. the truth is, only 3-5% of women attempting IVF un their 40s succeed in childbearing.

i often hear women complain that the corporate world is still a man’s world, and to have this validated by (harvard!) figures is certainly discouraging. up to that point, i can emphatize. but to read that a lot of these ultra- mega- super-highly achieving women regret not having children, i can’t bring myself to be symphatetic. they felt having been forced to make a choice (career vs family), when men do not have to. i do realize the loss to the genetic pool, sure, but…

at the risk of being flamed or (again) being target for rotten tomatoes, i will admit to owning that MOTHERS ARE MEANT TO STAY HOME AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR YOUNG. ok, before you let go of your expletives, at least give me the chance to explore the vagaries. having a background in biological sciences, i’ve always believed that the impetus for almost everything can be traced back to biological and anthropological reasons. simply put, if it is not the mother’s job to take care of her offsprings, then whose is it? take any representative of the animal kingdom and see who’s looking after the young ones.

being a mother is a full time job. a very demanding one. any mother would (should?) know this. sure, one can be a mom and have a job on the side, yes. but a fast-track career? it’s like being an in-demand neurosurgeon and a high-profile criminal lawyer, and trying to be good at both at the same time. possible but not probable. there’s no other way about it; it’s one or the other. a high-powered career and having children just doesn’t go together. no, don’t think i’m simply sour-graping. in fact, i take my case in point. i’m practically unemployed and am therefore able to spend a lot of time with my kid, comparatively. nevertheless, at the end of each day, i am often exhausted and still sometimes feel i have not done enough. i cannot imagine how much more inadequate at parenting i would feel if i had to work 80 hours a week as well. and i don’t believe that crap that it’s the quality of time spent together that matters, not the quantity. for very young children, quantity does matter. and what quality time could there be, if you spent the better part of the day exhausting yourself in boardrooms and client meetings, making million-dollar-deals?

before i get completely misinterpreted, let me point out that i do have understanding for mothers who take on jobs for financial reasons (probably 99% of my friends and relatives fall in this category). or those who feel their jobs make them a better person and hence, a better mom (love kita, AnP!). or those who need their jobs for intellectual nourishment (ahem?). these women are not the subject of that harvard article nor of this blog entry. the point is: there is a difference between a job and a career. mothers who simply take on a job know their priorities. they’d be there when the child is sick, or need help with homework in the evenings, and needs to go to the doc for immunization shots. but i pity the child born to a woman who consciously opt for a fast-track career and expect to squeeze-in mothering in-between meetings, trips and conferences. what kind of parenting would that be? poor child.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 at and is filed under parenting. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.