I've been reading some of these threads and would like to add a few things.

First is Hirshman's call to women to drop art history and the ilk and take up more male dominated fields. I don't think she meant that Kara personally do it, it seemed more a battle cry to the women there to re-examine what they really planned to do w/ their life/career 'cause examining Titian in Venice won't be paying the mortgage. I guess she would like women to make life choices like men make life choices. Not that you have to agree w/ that, but that's the gist of what I read from her.

Second, when we talk about choice, what does that mean? Do we have real choices or are we still working from patriarchy gender roles? Why don't men get to choose to take on a primary role to care for children? Or why does one person have to be the primary care giver? Why would one person have to be the primary bread winner? I thought the point of feminism was to break down the division between personal/family and professional/career that patriarchy erected.

Last, why does having a balanced work/family life fall to the privilege of one gender? Isn't it better for families and marriages when all parties get to enjoy a balanced life? I can't imagine that the vast majority of men and women are such type A personalities that they would rather be at work than home w/ their spouse/family enjoying a birthday, holiday, vacation, etc.

Just some thoughts.

I think at this point women are more likely to push themselves to go against gender roles. This can be unhealthy too.

If we want more men to do child care, we can't run around saying that it is a worthless, unfulfilling job as Hirshman does. We need to point out what an anti-woman, anti-feminist viewpoint that is.

At some point we have GOT to move beyond the simplicities of choosing "male-dominated" careers and "rebelling" against gender roles.

For god's sakes aren't we there yet???

It is (to me) an absolute fucking INANITY to say that a woman shouldn't choose "Art History" -- I want to scream!

Why not Art History? If she loves it and she is dedicated to it and in bliss when she's both learning about it and contemplating it, then why the fuck not??

Isn't THAT what all the struggles were for?

Is it seriously the point that we struggle for equality so that we can choose to sit in some grindingly boring white-collar sweatshop? I don't care if there is an Engineering degree and alphabet soup after her name.

Equality and Freedom go hand in hand. THat is both personal and societal.

Our society and culture should have evolved enough to value family, children and equality such that a woman (or man of course) who CHOOSES Art History or Child Development or Chemical Engineering can have the opportunity to pursue the education, and a culture that supports his or her work in the field.

Women who write such BULLSHIT that we have to choose "better" fields drive me crazy.

AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!

OK Ms artandsoul Are you seriously going to consider marrying a man with an art history degree and the earning potential that brings? Can you seriously afford to have the family you want on his art history major salary? Or are you in fact looking for the guy who can support you and your children in the style you'd like to become accustomed to while you pursue your hobby? Yeah, I thought so.

Wow - those are an awful lot of assumptions you're making there kerryrose!

1. "seriously consider marrying a man with an art history degree" --

assumes I'm looking for a husband, that I would choose a husband because of his degree(!) and his earning potential (!), that I'm hetero sexual, that I'm looking for a mate at all, that I don't adore Art and Art History, etc etc

2. "can you seriously afford the kind of family you want on his art history major salary" - wtf? your assumptions about marriage, family and economics seems to come out of some 1950's edition of Emily Post.

3. "looking for the guy who can support you and your children" -- again with the wtf? Hasn't feminism gone more than one centimeter past the whole "I need a man to support me" crap?

4. "in the style to which you'd like to become accustomed to while you pursue your hobby" -- this is such a load of crap that it is hard to respond to. What makes you think that reasonable people of medium amounts of intelligence couldn't find joy and a meaningful living by pursuing careers that incorporate the things they enjoy? What kind of head-up-your-ass ring-box sized thinking are you using?

I happen to be the parent of 5 kids - the oldest at 35 pursued a career in engineering and is working at NASA while also spending enormous amounts of time pursuing photography and creative writing. He bought is own house three years ago, and used the proceeds of his "hobbies" for the down payment. The next child is 32 has degrees in Industrial Design and a masters in Interactive Art and has spent 8 years in a variety of jobs across the globe (Italy, Sweden, LA and Belize) contracting with governments and companies to create public spaces (squares, art installations, etc) and has taught and published books on these installations. Our 22 year old is about to graduate with a BFA in painting, has had 3 juried shows and has sold over $10,000 worth of her work. The 21 year old is finishing up her degree in Social Work and has completed the application for a global peace initiative and will be basically out in a volunteer and Public Health capacity for 3 years till she figures out how she wants to proceed. Our youngest just finished her 1st year of college so she isn't sure what she's doing beyond going to the beach this weekend.

So I would say that I'm very proud of my kids who are all pursuing the things they love, making very good livings at doing so and who have huge amounts of satisfaction in the process. Each of them is free to make whatever relationship choices they would like:

Some are heterosexual and some are gay. Some may marry and some may not. Some may have children and some may not. All five of them have a strong sense of independence, success and all of them pay their fucking taxes and abide by the laws of the land - so I think they're doing a damn fine job of living.

As for me, I started and run a 501(c)(3) non-profit that teaches art to people in crisis situations - I work with Hospice organizations and therapists who specialize in child and adolescent trauma.

So yeah - you thought so.

From what I've read from Hirshman, she criticizes the "choice" women make to opt out or pick what are typically pink collared jobs. My assesment of her works is that women do not actually have a true choice/freedom to make those choices because women have yet to acheive a true equality. Since women lack true choices, it is up to us to work as a collective and enter male dominated fields and excel at them. By moving up the ranks in professional fields that were once rare to have females in and then "choosing" to give it up to stay home with the kids or to mommy-track your career is detrimental and re-enforces partriachal fears that women aren't up to the job (as opposed to that paticular person).

Kerryrose:

What a limited view of the possibilities out there. I am married to an artist, and love it. True, our life will be non-traditional (he will not be the sole, or likely even primary, breadwinner; I will not be the sole child-rearer or housekeeper or cook). But I love our non-traditional life because we both are happy and passionate about living it, and both get to pursue our "hobbies" and interests. Money is just how you pay the bills: happiness is about much more. There is more than one way to climb Mt. Everest Kerryrose.

msmandam,

I love practically everything you've written here, but I must say that I don't think a person should make their life decisions based on concerns about patriarchal fears. Patriarchal fears will always be irrational, be perceptively distorted, and change to fit the circumstance. So it's rather like attempting to conform to a shadow.

you're right samurai, and there are some points where I don't entirely agree w/ Hirshman. Women have varied interests and priorities so I think it would be impossible to unite them in some sort of bloc.

However, the gist of Hirshman's work is that she provokes women to examine their choices and to realize that certain choices affect the equilibrium of power.

I don't entirely agree w/ Hirshman's assessment that if there were more women in positions of power, then you'll begin to see equal treatment. I think it might have that affect but it could also be equally true that once women get into power, they'll be unwilling to change the status quo. As it happens some women who hold positions of power can be as demanding as a male boss about employees missing their kids' birthday parties, piano recitals, baseball games, etc in order to work extra hours.

I think the key is when both men and women start demanding a work schedule that doesn't interfere with their family life, then you'll begin to see more equality in the work force.

I have a somewhat different perspective on this. I'm a recruiting manager for a large high tech company.

"Why not Art History? If she loves it and she is dedicated to it and in bliss when she's both learning about it and contemplating it, then why the fuck not?? "

My response is that it is not a serious major that leads to a productive job. Like it or not we can't all be in bliss. Someone has to do the actual work in the world. I do alot of college recruiting and it is endlessly frustrating to interview hundereds of graduating seniors and only a handful have pursued useful majors. Even those majors that used to be a solid source of great workers like Business Adminsitration are getting worse because students today avoid the most useful courses like accounting, finance, and economics like the plague. Then I have to stare into the eyes of dozens and dozens of marketing majors and tell them there are no jobs for them. We are suffering economically in this country because students won't take math and science and finance. They won't take the courses that industry needs them to take. We are already turning out way too many art history majors. It's time to start taking education seriously instead of seeing it as some pathway to spiritual exploraton and bliss. I fear for the future of this country if we don't.

My personal solution is to offer large grants to students taking classes in the sciences and no economic aid at all to those in the humanities.

Hi TJA -

I don't think equating the useless majors that Business schools foist on unsuspecting undergraduates is quite the same thing as a vigorous Art History Major.

No, it is not science. But a good Art History major has mastered a foreign language, has mastered the art of research (usually IN a foreign language), has studied the rise and fall of cultures, has studied the integration of business and history, as well as studied most of the literature, architecture and art on which our culture is based.

This does tend to produce a very valuable Law Student, as well as someone interested in Graduate pursuits in other fields.

Agreed, not necessarily science or tech - but Art History makes no promises of such. And human beings should be encouraged to pursue that if that is where they are drawn.

The real travesty in education is a Business School or Arts & Sciences touting majors like "Economics" "Marketing" "Business Administration" as an undergraduate major that qualifies them for nothing. Not even a start up in retail.

But not to worry - with the current state of affairs in our country I have no doubt that you'll get your wish that all art, music and cultural studies will be amputated from the education scene.

1984 here we come.

Of course, you may not recognize it if you don't take literature. But what the heck - you will sure know how to program that computer, won't you?

I love creative people. I hire alot of them. I'm just pointing out that there are 100 grads with creative majors for every 10 openings in industry and 10 grads with business or science majors for every 100 openings in industry. It's all well and good to talk about the benefits of a liberal arts education or art history etc. but the bottom line is that when most kids graduate they expect to be able to get a job. They can't all work in galleries. It is simple common sense for us to design a system that encourages students to take majors that are clamoring for grads to hire and steer all but the most talented away from those majors that are producing far more grads than there are jobs.

What you say makes sense on paper, but not in reality.

Because right now India graduates hundreds of thousands of engineers and they are working for about $7 an hour to be costumer service reps for every single company in AMerica - from Credit Cards to Comcast.

An engineering grad in the US is no more qualified for the top jobs in "industry" than a smart, creative person who has mastered French, Italian and read Homer.

My son graduated with an MS in Aeronautical Engineering. He was lucky to get a job at NASA back in 1999. He is one of the small percentage of classmates who got a job in his field. The rest work for airlines -- selling tickets and talking into walkie-talkies to the baggage handlers. Pretty high tech.

Our daughter got an Industrial Design degree and an associated Masters at NYU. She was able to get a job because she spoke fluent Italian (based on a foreign exchange experience in High School) and so was hired by an Italian Tech firm -- and from there she went on to work with a group out of Sweden. They mostly wanted her to marry the tech part with her language and sculpting skills.

She has just moved back to the US and has had a tough time finding a job in any of the tech fields. She's going back to school in August. Berkley. We'll see - she may just like school :)

What I'm saying is that a young person must take responsibility for making their life successful and worthwhile. No one is going to do it for them. There are no guarantees like "if you go to med school you will make a lot of money" same for law school, engineering, etc. COmpetition is fierce and you must be very good at what you do.

A great love of science and math can be cultivated and perhaps that would lead someone into a field they love that is also competitive.

But I believe it begins with the person -- and not with a sense or a view of entitlement. "Oh, if I have a Business degree then I'm going to get a great job." Meh!

Do something you love. Do it well - as well as you possibly can. And then you will find a job that is rewarding and the successes will be there too.

If a student in any field excels at what they do then there is always a place for them.

It's only if we are trying to move the masses of mediocrity that your premise makes sense -- and do you really want a slew of mediocre science and math majors floating around our economy? No one will hire them regardless of what their degree is in. Mediocre people are simply that - mediocre.

Just my rant. Take care!

artandsoul,

I usually agree with you wholeheartedly, and I always find your perspective interesting; however, in this case you are arguing secondhand experience through your exceptional children against TJA's firsthand experience with the world of business.

My firsthand experience of the tech industry matches TJA's much more than yours. In none of the 7 companies I've worked for in the past 12 years would an art history major be hired for any position, regardless of language experience, world experience, etc. An IT resume without a hard science degree will get a laugh at most before being discarded. In my case, having a studio art and mathematics double major allowed my resume to stand out among the crowd and land my first job, but I would not have been given a first glance without the mathematics.

I'm certain that you and your family lead fulfilling lives and are a model of happiness. You sound like a wonderful and inspirational person. Unfortunately, the exceptional cannot exist as such without the average against which they are measured. The world of business, and the majority of our economic structure, relies on a structure of people filling average, mediocre positions. I detest the world in which I work and would have taken a different path, if not for my familial obligations. When my children are in school, my wife and I will be willing to risk financial security so that I can open a restaurant. At this point, the time investment of such a venture would require to much sacrifice on the part of my entire family.

Regards,

cmolt

cmolt -

Those are some very kind words and I thank you for them!

I respect what you're saying - and TJA as well. I really do, even though it may sound like I'm arguing with it. I'm not.

Our daughter who is getting the BFA - had a chance to do a double major at Carnegie-Mellon Math and Art. We were as "strongly encouraging" as we have ever been to get her to do that. We recognize her ability and the added heft and dimension a Math Major would add to her artistic talent. (She crapped out because of the weather in Pittsburgh - talk about something DIFFICULT for a parent to swallow!!)

I hear what you're saying about "average" and "mediocre" positions and training people to fill them. I"m probably not original in my fear that skewing the educational system (through scholarship or low interest loans) to fill "mediocre" and "average" work positions would eventually turn those to "totally dull and meaningless" -- the whole entropy and gravity concepts taking over.

I live in a town that is basically powered by State Government. All the "big buildings" are state offices and there is no other kind of job really to get here (outside of hospitality/restaurant).

I do have to remind myself that THIS is not normal. That this is not mainstream or even "average" out there in America.

*I* tend to think of those jobs as "mediocre" and "average" because there are so many of them, and they seem to encourage this LONG tenure a the State teat.

Thanks for reminding me that my experience - while including many things - is not representative!

Take care - and I really hope you DO get to open that restaurant!!

A&S