The comparisons between the essay Baby Bust and Ambition resulted in numerous similarities, each with their own point of view. In the Baby Bust essay it is stated that in the struggle to balance work and family, work consistently wins. People are choosing not to have children, and it is affecting our economy. Compared to the Ambition essay which generally has a more positive tone regarding this issue. Both essays have connections in their government and societal influence on people, pressure to start a family without risking your career, and the effects of work and family balance.
The government and society impact our lives greatly, they provide us with information that we believe to be true, but this is not always the case. In the seventeenth century, Spinoza made the word “ambitious” into a rather dislikable quality in an individual. Particularly in women, the word “ambitious” was associated with a “career woman” which implied that she was pitiless, and would give anything to rise above all. This societal concept was later challenged in the seventies and eighties, and was transformed into a more acceptable quality (Ambition, P. Klass). Compared to another epidemic when the government would call attention to “population explosion”. They were certain that the planet will soon be overcrowded, which was entirely false. Due to
…show more content…
There is a pressure that one must have children before they reach a certain age, but several feel it will jeopardize their careers. In the essay Baby Bust, it is stated that women are putting off having children and young adults are choosing to have none. Research indicated that 40% of women in the profession have not started a family due to their careers and 30% of men said the same (Baby Bust, P. Klass). Similarly, in the essay Ambition, today women are uncertain between family and career. Women who rise to the top realize it may be too late to have children (Ambition, P.
A woman has many decisions and sacrifices to make when balancing work and family. Ann-Marie Slaughter is the author of “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” where she explains what it is like to hold a higher ranking position and have children at home. She begins by building her credibility with personal facts and sources, citing other women in younger and older generations. Slaughter fills her essay with high emotion to empower women to be able to have a higher profession without giving up the time with the ones you love. She describes what it is like to lead her business life, and struggle to guide her children, when she doesn’t even have time for herself.
In today’s economy, it is a hard fact that many women will have to enter the workforce. In her article for The Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t have it All”, Anne-Marie Slaughter examines the difficulties faced by women who either have children or would someday like to do so. Having given up on the task of holding a high powered government position while being the mother of a teenager, her kairotic moment, the author discusses the changes that would be necessary in order for women to find a real work-life balance. Although Slaughter 's target audience is primarily women who seek high powered positions, the article contains ample information that should appeal to both men who seek to balance the needs of a growing family with their work responsibilities, as well as workplace policy makers who could help usher in the necessary changes. Her goal in sharing her experiences is to argue that women can succeed at the very top level of their organizations, “But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured” (Slaughter).
There is data to support the idea of a mother taking time off or a woman reducing her working hours to part-time will hurt her significantly in the career world. The reason for this sudden break in a woman’s career being motherhood. The most popular reason for working less hours is in a law firm is for a mother to take care of her child. Taking this additional time off decreases the chances of the mother receiving a partnership immensely. When doing this, the mother also risks the idea of herself being seen as “not serious about her career”, permanently damaging her chances of promotion at the private practice. However, mothers are no less likely than childless women to receive a
Nonetheless, the fundamental theory remained unchanged (Gaskilld). Utilitarianism focused on the utility of the outcome. Classical utilitarianism focused simply on pleasure and happiness, however, this includes economic gain and generally improved quality of life. Single mothers currently suffer from an unemployment rate of 7.6%, significantly higher than the married mother at 4% (Mathru). Moreover, the average entry-level law associate works over 46 hours per week (Law). These statistics form a demanding and risky future. The time required in being a mother is incalculable. Furthermore, infrequent sleeping patters and increased responsibilities can significantly increase stress and decrease performance. If the young mother is able to balance work and child rearing independently, her performance would likely suffer in both fields. In a more tragic scenario, the pregnancy may cost the female her career. 43% of mothers leave their careers voluntarily (Light). This statistic does not account for mothers who leave due to decreased performance. With no partner to help support the family, both the female and her child would suffer economic difficulties. Economic disparity directly correlates with increased criminal behavior, unemployment, and substandard wages (Finance). Raising a child in a single parent household holds negative implications for
This encapsulates the simultaneously Machiavellian and ethically hedonist philosophy of the government. Happiness is all that matters, the methods to reach this happiness do not. Moreover, it also demonstrates how the system is able to keep people like Montag from rebelling; it offers a precarious satisfaction with life that, so long as no one challenges it, will remain.
The type of methodology used is face-to-face interviewing. Ranson (2005) interviews 37 women who are engineers (p. 145). The interviews give the reader real life examples while backing up the author’s argument. One of the interviewees, Sally, goes on to explain how she is successful in her career because of not having children (Ranson, 2005, p. 152). This reflects the idea in the book Lean In. As stated in lecture, women prevent themselves from advancing in their careers by not “leaning in” (Jovanovic, 2014). This prevents them from moving forward in their career and not being as financially successful as they can be. Sally demonstrated that she “leaned into” her career by not having children which allowed her to be successful.
In Judith Stadtman Tuckers “The Least Worst Choice: Why Mothers Opt out of the Work Place” Judith Stadtman Tucker looks at why hard working, intelligent woman are choosing to leave their high end jobs to stay at home with their children. Judith Stadtman Tucker expresses her option that it is nearly impossible to work 40 hours a week, be available on your off hours as well as raise children. I fully agree with Judith Stadtman Tucker’s point of view that it is absurd to have to be at the mercy of your employer even in your off hours, nor less if you are attempting to create an emotional connection and successfully raise a child. It is no question that even in today’s modern society that it is assumed that woman are the best caregivers for young children. If you are put in a position where you have a child to raise, is it more appropriate to abandon your career or to emotionally abandon your child to a stranger or strangers and allow them to raise it? Judith Stadtman Tuckers argument against mothers having to choose between the joys of parenthood and the freedom of being able to work a career really speaks to me because it makes me consider what I want for my own future and what I would choose.
In recent history, the majority of the movement regarding the gender gap in the workplace has been in response to the opportunity available to males versus female. Today however, that debate topic has shifted to explain why opportunity does not grantee professional success and what role society plays on that restriction. It was already said by Sandberg that a difference in biology affects the choices individuals make, and that issue alone is independent from any social construct that would usually affect choices. Slaughter outlines one of these societal flaws is in the “unspoken rules” or norms of hiring and firing in Washington. She states, “to admit to, much less act on, maternal longings would have been fatal to their careers.” Often a euphemism for being fired is saying that one is leaving to focus on homemaking. It seems to be implied by the authors that often, merely having a family that deserves time and
Eastman is confident, along with many others, that women have the divine right of choosing their occupation. That is not to be hindered by the outrageous ignorance of men. Women have every right, just as men to choose in what environment they will work, and in what specialty they will labor. Women will not tolerate the sexism and prejudice any longer. It is a choice to have children, and if a woman chooses to have children, she interrupts the early start in any career she could possibly have, however this should not limit her in the choice of her career, or the capabilities she possesses either. Motherhood is a choice, and should not be complained upon. There are ways to avoid the consequences of pregnancy and therefore cannot be used as an excuse to complain of prejudices of men. Motherhood is an endowment, a gift. “The occupation of raising children is a service to society… It is
It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position, (Adams 412).
As of 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey reveals 47.6 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 do not have children. This percentage is the highest the calculation has been since the bureau started keeping track of this data in 1976. The senior editor of Mic, Elizabeth Plank says women choosing to not have children makes complete sense given the state of the country’s economy, the gender pay gap, and the outrageous cost of raising a child today. Women, especially millennial women, know of the consequences they will face if they choose to start a family while also trying to maintain a successful career. Men are also affected by becoming a parent while being part of the workforce (Gray). Starting or expanding a family affects both a woman and a man in emotional and financial ways; therefore, parental leave from a job should be a reasonable length, paid, and for both parents.
Throughout this course and book, came to me the realization in which many women today are facing choices, which even their mothers never had to face. One of these choices is whether or not to go back to work after having a child or going to have a job without having a family first. Or how to deal with everything all at once if choosing it all? When did they have to have a limited choice set in stone? Why are mothers and young women plagued with these choices? When one thinks of the subject
In addition, Dr. Djerassi addresses the possible reasons for women to deny themselves a career in science. One of the reasons is biological. Women can have children and men can not. Dr. Djerassi points out that it is extremely difficult to raise a family and balance a scientific career at the same time. For example, Professor Arderly is in the prime of her life and has a fairly secure relationship with her husband. However, she decides to get her tubes tied because she thinks that she would never have enough time to be a good mother. She explains her situation to Celestine Price by saying, "You just can't be a mother and get tenure during the six years you've got as an assistant professor...Nowadays, the promotion committees are supposed to take pregnancy into consideration, but most of the people running them are still men, and older men at that."3 The choice between motherhood and a career in science is difficult. If this is the choice that many women face, it is easy to
Childfree women are also being offered more career promotions than women with children. The pay gap might also increase with age because women hit the infamous “glass ceiling” at the top of their professions. The “glass ceiling” is the highest level they can obtain in their careers’. In supporting my statement, many women hit the “maternal wall” of discrimination before they ever reach the “glass ceiling.” Sarah Glazer provides a perfect example, “A civil engineer in Pennsylvania was awarded $3 million in a lawsuit because she was passed over a promotion after the birth of her son. She testified that the president of the company asked her if she wanted a career here of if she wanted to have babies” (Glazer 36). The president of this particular company obviously came to the assumption that her level of production in her chosen profession would decrease due to raising her child.
Women also had to live up to their family heritage and what their family’s thoughts were of a woman in the workforce. Some women felt that family issues had delayed the dawn of their careers. Barbara White, in Women’s Career Development, describes these women as late starters. Late starters are women who have been held back because of other commitments, beliefs or opinions. Some of today’s ‘profssionals’ made late commitments to their careers. Thirty-one percent decided that they would work at an early age because of family morals and traditions (White, 104).