On having or not having children

Last night, we had the pleasure of sharing a a delicious last-minute dinner with our friends Joel and Crista. Being in a very similar place in life - young, married professionals with no kids, able to meet up at a day's notice - we slowly wandered into a conversation about the dilemmas of starting a family.

Like for so many people our age, the decision whether to have children is weighed by a huge disconnect between the family model we know and the world in which we live.

We grew up in families where both parents worked, but the mother either gave up her job when the kids were little, or continued to work part-time with some loss to her career. Women made large gains in equality in the workplace, but it was still assumed that the woman would naturally carry most of the responsibility for making a home and raising children. This is the model that we know from experience, and I've blogged before about the residual effect that it has on my expectations of myself as a wife.

But for a variety of reasons, this model can no longer be taken for granted because for many families, it simply no longer works. We live in a world where the economy is increasingly indifferent to the physical strength of men. The skills and abilities required in today's workplace - like emotional intelligence and the ability to work well with people - are predominantly female attributes. There is strong evidence that "the modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards" - women already get the majority of Bachelor's degrees, hold the majority of jobs in the US, and dominate in 13 of the 15 job types predicted to grow the most in the next decade.

We see this shift among the families we know - it is often the woman who has the more lucrative degree, gets the better job, and makes more money than the man. All this has profound implications for family life.

As it often happens, the shift in the economy coincides with a shift in prevailing attitudes. It's been interesting to observe this change in very different families we know - conservative and liberal, in Poland and America, both religious and not. It is no longer assumed that the woman is the automatic caregiver for her children, and we see many mothers continue their very successful careers while fathers scale back on work and take a much more active role in raising the kids. While it is hard for some at first, this new arrangement is no longer raising eyebrows like it used it.

This is nothing new. For example, at a time in ancient Mesopotamia when women were in charge of the fields and gardens, the society was a matriarchy and worshiped female gods. Then the means of producing food changed with the invention of the plough. The plough was much heavier and gave men the advantage over women in economic production, and it was right around the time when it was adopted that Mesopotamian society shifted towards patriarchy, with male priests and gods. It is crazy to think that differences in the status of women to this day are tied to whether their ancestors tilled the land with a hoe or the plough. We are now seeing a reverse shift - when the economy begins to favor women, women gain in freedom and social prominence.

Now, I would be wrong to claim that the model I grew up with no longer works for anybody. It works rather well for many women and my close friends who do a beautiful job at motherhood. But there is an important difference with the past - the decision for the woman to stay at home or scale back on work is not automatic, but the outcome of a mutual understanding between the partners. It is no longer assumed that it is mainly the woman's job to nurture the children - how that is arranged depends on a mutual decision.

So where does that leave us? We face the task of reaching a mutually satisfying understanding about how our family is going to work for two professionals who both find great fulfillment in our jobs. Is it possible to strike such an agreement in the 21st century? In the next post, I will talk about the many reasons why it's extremely hard. In the next one after that, I will try to explain how it might be possible. Meanwhile, the thoughts and comments of our mysterious seven readers will be much appreciated.

A Short History of Patriarchy

Being the enlightened and emancipated couple that we are (well, and strapped for money as well), Billy and I decided this year to take turns cooking.

Before that, I made most of the food for two simple and related reasons:

1. I'm better at it
2. I genuinely enjoy cooking
(As in, I admire vegetables at the farmer's market like some people admire sculptures in a museum, and there are few things I enjoy more than hosting a feast of a dinner party for friends)

So for as long as I had time to do it, I gladly reigned over the kitchen.

The time condition changed radically when I started my doctoral program. Being the enlightened and emancipated couple that we are, we both thought it was not fair for just one of us to do all the cooking when we both work about the same. So we decided to take turns - he cooks for a week, I cook for a week, and that way we can shop for whatever ingredients we need for the whole week. By the end of the first month, I began to feel like the bones of patriarchalism that I thought I'd buried a long time ago were sticking out of their shallow graves right and left.

It was not Billy who dug them up, either. As soon as his schedule got a little busier and preparing meals became an extra stretch, I was overcome by a sense of guilt and responsibility. Whenever it appeared like cooking was causing him any stress, I jumped right in to rescue him and say that it was ok, I could just do it, don't worry about it. Somewhere deep down, I had it ingrained in me that even though it's great that he's "HELPING", it is ultimately MY job to feed the household. I kept doing this even though it left me tired and at times bitter that "I do more of the work around here". It took a few long conversations to make me realize that my constant rescuing did not help either one of us - it actually made Billy feel terrible about not doing his part in our house.

All this made me think again about the meaning and relative novelty of domestic equality. My deep-seated sense of responsibility is probably a thousand years old. It took birth in a cave or shack, at a time when the roles of men and women were defined by their physical attributes and how those translated into their ability to survive in a hostile world. Over time, these differences were translated into timeless roles sanctioned by deities of all sorts and shapes. At one point in the past, this role division allowed our species to survive, so it became entrenched as the ultimate norm.

It reminds me of something I noticed about my grandparents a while ago. To survive the war and the hard times that followed, they went into a kind of survival mode - a total focus on the basic necessities of life that cut out marginalities like emotions for the sake of overcoming external threats. That strategy probably saved their lives, but when the war was over, they were so used to functioning this way that they went on in the same way, bringing about alienation and lack of intimacy. In survival mode, there is often only one right way to go, unanimous action is crucial, and dissent can be fatal. This is how you function in crisis - but if it becomes the long term operating procedure for a marriage, for raising children and sustaining a family, the same thing that once saved your life becomes deadly. I can't help but think it's the same with patriarchalism - it's a strategy that once worked very well for us, but in a changed reality it threatens to erode the well-being we've fought so hard to achieve. That is what happens, for instance, when a woman is expected to still take care of the home and raise children even though she works equally to the man outside the home.

I've found that the adaptation of operating procedures to new realities can be especially difficult for people with strong religious beliefs. As people of faith, we believe the Divine Being revealed Him/Her-Self to humanity, and if He/She did, isn't it reasonable to assume that the Revelation was singular, unchanging, and once-and-for-all? If so, both men and women working equally outside the home a shift to a post-industrial economy don't mean a thing, because gender roles have been defined once and for all by God.

Within my own religious tradition, I find two strands that delightfully subvert this gateway to fundamentalism. First is the underestimated and underinterpreted biblical Wisdom literature, where we often see two contradictory statements right next to each other. Which one is right? Which is the divine will? It depends! Wisdom is not a once-and-for-all formula, but rather the ability to choose the right formula for the right situation, God's redemptive gift for fundamentalizing humans. The second is the Incarnation itself - the ultimate act of Revelation was not a holy rule book or codex, but a Person - thoughtful in solitude at dawn in the Galilean hills, tongue-in-cheek at a wedding in Cana, mad as a hatter at the cleansing of the Temple. Proclaiming a message that notoriously throws our expectations upside down - last being first, poor being rich, humble exalted, the Kingdom all unlike what we're used to.

This incarnate wisdom of God (incidentally or not quite so incidentally personified as a woman - Sophia - in biblical wisdom literature) is ultimately why I continue to practice taking it easy on the couch while Billy cooks, and telling myself it's ok. It's not as hard as it first looked.