Why (and how) we shouldn't have it all

Debates over whether women should lean in, lean out, have it all or just some have been raging over the last few years, with few clear answers. Should women emulate men? Adjust what they’re doing to gain power? Opt out entirely?

At this week’s WAPPP Seminar on “Different Ways of Not Having It All: Work, Care, and Gender Change in the New Economy,” NYU Sociologist Kathleen Gerson suggests that the answers can’t, and shouldn’t be that simple.

While women have made tremendous strides in the workplace and at home, we’re entering a whole new economic era, where the boundaries between work and home, local and global job markets, and part and full-time work are all blurring---to say nothing of changing gender norms in most vocations.

Meanwhile, even household norms are changing, with more women working outside the home even through a child’s life, work tensions affecting marital relationships, and greater expectations of parental involvement throughout a child’s life.

As a result, both economics and home life are changing and becoming even less secure: careers aren't quite the linear, predictable paths they used to be, nor are household expectations of, and demands on both partners.

There are three main ways that people are thinking about these changes:

• “Neotraditional” arrangements, in which both partners work and are committed to one another, but one partner “specializes” in care, while the other “specializes” in breadwinning
• “Self-Reliance,” where, even in committed relationships, both partners work to provide money and care in equal doses---without counting on the other.
• and “Gender flexibility,” in which there is an egalitarian sharing of earning and caretaking, but a vague meaning of equality: care and breadwinning are responsibilities assigned not by gender, just what needs to be done

Both men and women would prefer gender-flexibility as an ideal arrangement. But in practice, women tend to fall back to more self-reliant positions, while men reflexively tend toward neotraditional arrangements. This is partly because men are still under the subtle yet profound pressure of the male breadwinner ideal: a man who can’t support his family is unmarriageable and “isn’t a man.” Even equality is seen as chivalrous: “equality means the woman has a choice; but I don’t.”

In practice, a third of people are “neotraditionalists,” with fathers left managing time-demanding jobs. About a third of people are “on their own,” and are left to rear children by themselves or without a committed partner. One of six couples have reversed traditional roles, with women providing more financially, but this leading to resentment in the relationship. And another sixth are “equal, but exhausted.”

At the end of the day, these choices are not about gender, but universal hopes to have a balanced life with predictable work and secure relationships---all permutations of which will require trade-offs. The erosion of job and relationship security are permanent conditions with which we must all contend; to do so we may have to redefine the responsibilities of being a man and a woman in the modern world.




Photo Source

Agents of Change: Black Women Mobilizing for Land Rights in Brazil

When I say “social movement leader” who comes to mind? I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi and Cesar Chavez. When even your feminist blogger comes up with three men, there’s definitely an awareness problem. Keisha-Khan Y. Perry, Assistant Professor of Africana Studies at Brown University, spotlights poor black Brazilian women, who are indeed unsung social movement leaders.

Professor Keisha-Khan Y. Perry

The public image of these women in Brazil is that they lack the knowledge and political sophistication needed to organize social movements. In an extensive ethnographic study, Professor Perry documented and examined women’s participation and leadership in neighborhood associations. She demonstrates that the women are far from “passive undereducated servants.” On the contrary, they are savvy organizers and advocates plugged into the needs of their communities.  

In her forthcoming book, Black Women Against the Land Grab: The Fight for Racial Justice in Brazil, Professor Perry brings to light not only the level of political sophistication that these women possess, but also the role they play in their communities as “political theorists.” Perry argues that women are the main agents of interpreting the racial, gender, and class dynamics of urban development. These women intentionally organize as blacks, as women, and as the poor, which provides key insights on precisely how intersectionality is mobilized for social change. 

Gamboa de Baixo, Salvador, Brazil (photo by Helio Queiroz, Panoramio)

As poor all-Black neighborhoods in Brazilian cities come under threat of demolition and thousands of people face eviction – including for events like the World Cup and the Olympics – the women are leading the charge in empowering and radicalizing local communities.

So when you think of social movement leaders, think of women like Ana Cristina da Silva Caminha, who has led the grassroots movement against land expulsion in her community of Gamboa de Baixo in Salvador, Brazil. She fights not only for access to housing and clean water, but also for the preservation of her community’s soul – its bay-side location, its Afro-Brazilian spiritual practices, and its network of relationships. 


Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.