Monday, November 14, 2005

"Loser Dogs" in Japan

Japan's Princess Sayako, 36, will marry a commoner on Tuesday and lose her status as a member of the imperial family. She has worked as an ornithologist, but will become a stay-at-home wife after the wedding.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, it is popular to refer to unmarried women in their 30s are "loser dogs" in Japan.

"One of four Japanese women in their early 30s are unmarried, and [popular author Junko] Sakai says they waver emotionally between relief at their independence and lament for what they might be missing," writes the Times' Bruce Wallace.

"Instead of regarding single, 30-something working women as trailblazers, many women in their 20s pity the so-called loser dogs. Those who have snared husbands are now labeled 'winner dogs,' many content to coast through life on their husbands' paychecks."

In a related story, back in September, the New York Times published an article about how an increasing number of female undergraduates at elite Ivy League colleges plan to stop working or reduce their work to part-time once they are married and start having children.

From the article by Louise Story: "The likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

" 'It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?' said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

"It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity."

As I understand, this is also the case with the overwhelming majority of Japanese women, though increasing numbers are continuing to work and develop their careers while raising children.

NYT article on Ivy League women who put motherhood above careers

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

"My mother's always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. "You always have to choose one over the other."

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

"At the height of the women's movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing," said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. "The women today are, in effect, turning realistic."

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

"Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all," said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

"Men really aren't put in that position," she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

"I've seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn't, and it's kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it," said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

Two of the women interviewed said they expected their husbands to stay home with the children while they pursued their careers. Two others said either they or their husbands would stay home, depending on whose career was furthest along.

The women said that pursuing a rigorous college education was worth the time and money because it would help position them to work in meaningful part-time jobs when their children are young or to attain good jobs when their children leave home.

In recent years, elite colleges have emphasized the important roles they expect their alumni - both men and women - to play in society.

For example, earlier this month, Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton University, welcomed new freshmen, saying: "The goal of a Princeton education is to prepare young men and women to take up positions of leadership in the 21st century. Of course, the word 'leadership' conjures up images of presidents and C.E.O.'s, but I want to stress that my idea of a leader is much broader than that."

She listed education, medicine and engineering as other areas where students could become leaders.

In an e-mail response to a question, Dr. Tilghman added: "There is nothing inconsistent with being a leader and a stay-at-home parent. Some women (and a handful of men) whom I have known who have done this have had a powerful impact on their communities."

Yet the likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

"It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?" said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person's expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

University officials said that success meant different things to different people and that universities were trying to broaden students' minds, not simply prepare them for jobs.

"What does concern me," said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, "is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."

There is, of course, nothing new about women being more likely than men to stay home to rear children.

According to a 2000 survey of Yale alumni from the classes of 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994, conducted by the Yale Office of Institutional Research, more men from each of those classes than women said that work was their primary activity - a gap that was small among alumni in their 20's but widened as women moved into their prime child-rearing years. Among the alumni surveyed who had reached their 40's, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men.

A 2005 study of comparable Yale alumni classes found that the pattern had not changed. Among the alumni who had reached their early 40's, just over half said work was their primary activity, compared with 90 percent of the men. Among the women who had reached their late 40's, some said they had returned to work, but the percentage of women working was still far behind the percentage of men.

A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30's and 40's.

What seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.

"It never occurred to me," Rebecca W. Bushnell, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, said about working versus raising children. "Thirty years ago when I was heading out, I guess I was just taking it one step at a time."

Dr. Bushnell said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options for when they have children. "People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family."

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women's plans to stay home with their children.

"A lot of the guys were like, 'I think that's really great,' " Ms. Currie said. "One of the guys was like, 'I think that's sexy.' Staying at home with your children isn't as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30's now."

For most of the young women who responded to e-mail questions, a major factor shaping their attitudes seemed to be their experience with their own mothers, about three out of five of whom did not work at all, took several years off or worked only part time.

"My stepmom's very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable," said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. "It justified it to her, that I don't look down on her for not having a career."

Similarly, students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their mothers as influences. Laura Sullivan, a sophomore at Yale who wants to be a lawyer, called her mother's choice to work full time the "greatest gift."

"She showed me what it meant to be an amazing mother and maintain a career," Ms. Sullivan said.

Some of these women's mothers, who said they did not think about these issues so early in their lives, said they were surprised to hear that their college-age daughters had already formed their plans.

Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu's roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. "I do have this bias that the parents can do it best," she said. "I see a lot of women in their 30's who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best."

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation's top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

"They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it," said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women's and gender studies at Yale. "Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

"I really believed 25 years ago," Dr. Wexler added, "that this would be solved by now."

Angie Ku, another of Ms. Liu's roommates who had a stay-at-home mom, talks nonchalantly about attending law or business school, having perhaps a 10-year career and then staying home with her children.

"Parents have such an influence on their children," Ms. Ku said. "I want to have that influence. Me!"

She said she did not mind if that limited her career potential.

"I'll have a career until I have two kids," she said. "It doesn't necessarily matter how far you get. It's kind of like the experience: I have tried what I wanted to do."

Ms. Ku added that she did not think it was a problem that women usually do most of the work raising kids.

"I accept things how they are," she said. "I don't mind the status quo. I don't see why I have to go against it."

After all, she added, those roles got her where she is.

"It worked so well for me," she said, "and I don't see in my life why it wouldn't work."



Photo: Emily Lechner, at home in North Potomac, Md., with her mother, Carol, is a student at Yale who plans to become a lawyer, but who says her career will take a back seat once she starts having children.




Saturday, November 12, 2005

Beyond Good vs. Evil

With a lot of media publicity on the upcoming holiday release of Disney's new film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, I sat down and re-read the book last night (I had previously read the book back in fifth grade as assigned reading).

I was surprised at how short the book was (I read most of it within about 90 minutes), and at the same time, how well Lewis had crafted his story, especially for a younger audience.

According to news articles, Disney is worrying if the film is "Christian enough" for Christian audiences, and if it is "too Christian" for general audiences. I must admit that when I read the book in fifth grade, I read it as a story about a heroic lion, four British children, and their efforts to liberate a kingdom from oppression. It wasn't until our teacher (the school was affiliated with a Protestant church) started talking about how Aslan represented Christ that I saw the analogy.

But on re-reading the book some twenty years later, after many literature courses, the allegory of Aslan's self-sacrifice and resurrection from the death was obvious. But for small children? It probably would depend on how much exposure they had to Christian beliefs.

While I was reading, I started thinking, why are movies with such obvious divisions between good and evil so popular? I was thinking about the Star Wars films and Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. If one is to believe these films, we can all choose between good and evil, and, of course, we all WANT to choose the good, but when we don't, terrible things can happen (we turn to the Dark Side of the Force, we are corrupted by the power of the Ring, we become an agent of the White Witch).

And it made me feel nostalgic for the fiction of Ursula Le Guin, which deals with more complex themes based on Taoist philosophy. I think the basic difference in LeGuin's stories is that the good and evil that occurs is a result of human choices. There is no threat to the world from ultimate evil. The characters are threatened by choices they have made themselves.

Last December, the SciFi Channel showed a miniseries that took the basic themes of the Le Guin's Earthsea books and subordinated them into a story about good vs. evil. Someday, Hollywood will make an adaptation worthy of Ms. Le Guin's complex themes.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

May the Force be with you


We visited the Star Wars costume exhibit in downtown Los Angeles today. It's being held until December 10 at the Fashion Institute of Design and Marketing. Apparently the school had displayed several Star Wars costumes in an earlier exhibit, and LucasFilm thought they were the best choice to handle this type of exhibit. Read more at this link.



One of Padme Amidala's more elaborate costumes

I would say that most of the people there when we attended were basically Star Wars fans, a lot of families with children or couples under 40. My wife, who has never seen more than five minutes of a Star Wars film (and none in the theaters), liked the exhibit purely from a fashion design standpoint.

A Republican Senator and Chancellor Palpatine's aide

Although the exhibit has about a dozen costumes from the original trilogy, most of the costumes were designed for the most recent three films by a woman named Tricia Biggar.

Some of the few costumes from the original Star Wars trilogy

It was difficult to take good pictures in some of the exhibit rooms. Among the many rules of viewing the exhibit, one is not allowed to use flash photography.

Stormtrooper helmets

Some of the rooms, such as the one featuring the villainous Sith Lords, have very low lighting. My attempts to photograph the Darth Vader costume were in vain. It was interesting, though, to see how tall Vader stands, and imagine how imposing a character he would be.


Chewbacca (right) and another Wookie

If you are a Star Wars fan and will be in Los Angeles during the next month, I think it would be worth your while to stop by. The price per ticket is $5 if you buy on the internet (versus $7 by phone and $8 walk-up), which for my money is a better show than King Tut at the County Museum for 1/5 the price.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

If I Were Dictator for a Day...

On Sunday, daylight savings ended in most of the United States, including the state where I live. Monday was the first regular workday following the time change, and I will be returning home in complete darkness, an abrupt shift from the previous workweek.

I don’t travel very often, but when I do, I find it difficult to adjust to a time zone change of two or three hours. One hour is less difficult, but I think most people accept changing time as part of the effort of traveling.

But when it comes to Daylight Saving Time, the majority of the country has no choice whatsoever. Essentially, shifting from standard time to daylight savings time and back again forces most Americans to shift time zones twice a year, as if they were moving from Chicago time to New York time and back, forcing their internal clocks to adjust to the change.

I imagine you are thinking, "What's the big deal? You take a couple days to get adjusted, and then you forget about it."

I think it’s obvious that in the spring, many people have trouble the first few days, probably feeling a little more sleepy and less alert than usual. Though I’ve never seen any studies, I strongly suspect there is a higher rate of traffic accidents and other such incidents during the first days after changing to daylight savings time.

I understand that supporters of daylight saving time argue that energy is saved during the summer because it doesn’t get dark until later, during hours when people are normally active. Lights don’t have to be turned on because the sun is still out. People can enjoy their outdoor activities for an extra hour.

And yet the sudden shift from twilight at 6 pm to complete darkness at 6 pm a few days later seems to me as going against our basic connection to nature and the earth, to have our schedules shifted so dramatically and unnaturally.

During college I spent one (fall) semester in Japan. I didn’t realize what had happened until I had returned to the states and went through the time shift the next year. But during that fall, I experienced the days getting shorter through September and October, the days and nights got colder gradually. And it was pleasant, and it seemed natural, that the seasons turned gradually, without the abrupt shift of a time change.

Ever since, I've dreaded the return of the time shifts twice a year. Most people probably just accept it. But if you live through a whole half-year in a country without daylight saving time, I'd imagine you would feel the way I do.