I’ve been ruminating with something recently and I have doubts as to whether I can articulate it sensibly enough. However, I’ve no doubt that people who are paid feminist political economists have probably articulated this theory very well and therefore please do send me any links. I en’t got no time to dig in to the latest Routledge Feminist reader in Ec’s (if such a thing actually exists).
It occurred to me that the phenomena of working women coming late to childbearing is, however unconsciously, a form of “strike” against the prevailing economic and gender specific social conditions that resolve around the world of work.
Put it this way. If one chooses to partake in the modern western world, in terms of having holidays, an income which allows one to rent DVD’s or potentially join a gym, etc (I have very low expectations in this regard because of our limited family income. I guess you could add “flat screen TV’s, the latest MP3 player, etc to that list – and up the holiday ante… er, and getting a nice big house or something), then you need to have 2 incomes. Or one particularly big one. Since most people won’t be in a position where 1 salary pays for modern life, then let’s take it as being 2.
Which brings me to my point. I don’t think that it is merely a case of putting off having children until you are 35 or a similar age. I think that the reservations against having children earlier, on the part of the women involved, is the realistic acceptance that the prevailing socio-economic climate is one where if women have very little opportunity to enter back in to the work place at the level their skills can be best utilised. Workplaces simply do not offer women a flexible environment allowing them to work effectively, as well as look after kids – school hours, sleep hours etc being somewhat different for kids than adults.
The other point being of course that if employers *did* offer proper, comfortable flexible hours schemes then they could also promote them seriously to chaps.
So to reiterate – the reason women do not have children earlier is because those conditions do not exist when one is working up the ladder. They do marginally exist once one has reached a certain point on the ladder ie: I have proved my worth to your organisation, and you’d be idiots to lose me or alternatively, they do marginally exist in working in a part time capacity at the opposite end of the economic spectrum.
So in a sense then, the fact of women putting off having children is in fact a “strike” against the existing socio-economic conditions, rather than simply the decision to put it off because they want to enjoy a career. This is having all sorts of intriguing effect on western nations – primarily of course the increase in immigration from other countries, which I would say a hell of a lot of people have an extremely difficult time with. But most importantly, the lack of children leading to an aging population.
I’m not suggesting any answers or resolutions here. It just struck me as I was discussing this with someone that the “I’m putting it all off for my career” line hides a more subtle and proactive stance against something, rather than simply ‘for’ another.