| By Annika - Jan 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
According to a recent study of undergraduates, men are more willing than women to put romantic relationships before career advancement:
While 51 percent of the women prioritized romantic relationships over achievement goals, more than 61 percent of men did the same.
The CNN piece marvels over anecdotes that back up the study's findings: one girl graduates before her boyfriend...and doesn't wait around Ohio for him to do the same! One guy blows off a quiz and test prep when his girlfriend comes to town...then gets a bad grade!
Anecdotes aside, it seems fairly obvious to me that when men prioritize romance it's not at the expense of advancement—married men and fathers make more money than their single and childless male colleagues. On the other hand, single and childless women outearn and advance quicker than their married, child-rearing counterparts because women take on disproportionate amounts of household and parenting duties. This study, then, is a good sign that young women recognize this disparity and are making efforts to establish careers early— and ideally, this strategy will lead to more equitable relationships down the road.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Talk about reinforcing your preconceptions. That's an incredibly tenuous connection you've got there. There are a million ways guys can sacrifice in a way that prioritize love over careers, from moving to a city they'd rather not or taking a job they'd rather not in order to be with someone, or being willing to retire and be a househusband when the kids come along.
Smart feminists should rather view this as an example of FBMT, Feminism Benefits Men Too -- more men would probably be willing to take the above options if there weren't pressure on them to assume the 'provider' role. Statistically speaking, too few women are willing to consider the possibility of working while their husband retires to handle the kids, or of marrying a man that makes less than they do -- a direct result of that cultural norm.
The number one indicator of who'll retire when the kid comes along is who's making more money when he/she pops out.
If you want the inequality in who raises the kids to decrease, you should work to persuade women, on average, to be more willing to date men who make less money than they do. Currently, at all income levels, they're not -- even women making six-figures are (according to published statistics) incredibly unlikely to want to date someone making less than them.
Men, by contrast, seem far less averse to dating someone who makes more than them. That aversion's only going to decrease as feminism continues to break down rigid gender roles.
There ARE a million ways men can prioritize relationships over careers. But I doubt that they're holding back because women are unwilling to assume breadwinner responsibilities.
More likely, the cause is a factor you mentioned--whichever partner gets paid less is more likely to quit their job to take care of kids. And since women still generally get paid less than men, it's far more likely to be them.
My argument is that by starting careers early and intentionally, women can make more money and increase their bargaining power in relationships, making it more fiscally possible for partners to make an equitable, mutually beneficial decision about division of labor at home.