The Washington Post is not a serious newspaper:
If more mothers stay home to care for their children ...
Who's going to stay at the office and take care of the corporate profits?!
You can feel the visceral terror this strikes in the heart of the author.
From the Washington Post article:
The share of working mothers ages 25 to 44 with young children has fallen nearly every month this year, dropping by nearly 3 percentage points between January and June, to the lowest level in more than three years, …
How bad is it? This bad:
The drop has been enough to wipe out many of the gains made by working mothers after the pandemic, when remote work arrangements and flexible schedules lured many back to the labor force.
The gains! They've been wiped out!!
Note that these were not "increases" in women working that have been reversed. No, that would have suggested a certain neutrality of judgment. These were "gains," as in progress, as in something wholly desirable and good without a hint of any downside or tradeoff. And they just weren't reduced, they were "wiped out!"
And it gets worse, if you can believe that.
Many women are actually choosing to stay home not because of unavoidable circumstances preventing them from pursuing a fulfilling life nurturing a new product line, or proudly watching as an advertising campaign they had cared for and loved unconditionally goes out on its own, no, nothing as deeply rewarding as that.
They are doing it specifically so they can stay home and raise their own children!
As author Abha Bhattarai writes with a certain bewildered wonder:
In some cases, mothers say they are giving up jobs happily ...
What could account for such inexplicable behavior?
A natural maternal instinct? A deep longing for meaning and connection for which women are uniquely suited?
Oh, right, what was I thinking?
... in line with MAGA culture and the rise of the 'traditional wife' (#tradwife on social media), which celebrates women choosing conventional gender roles by focusing on children instead of careers.
"Conventional gender roles," as if carrying and giving birth to a child is just another social construct.
The article ticks all the necessary boxes including the typical "women, minorities hurt most" explanations. Bhattarai notes factors at play that are making it more difficult for women to join the workforce such as in-office mandates and the like, which no doubt play a part in how these roles are juggled.
And yet, Bhattarai expends precious column inches on stories like this:
'Work was a big, big part of my identity, but all of these little things added up,' said Isabelle Beulaygue, 37, a sociologist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who left her job as a university professor earlier this year to stay home with her infant. 'I was always super career-focused, but it started feeling like women were expendable at work, like they weren't really respected anymore.'
What? Where did that come from? Suddenly women are considered expendable at work? I work with a lot of women. They are no more expendable than I am!
Incidentally, Beulaygue was one of "more than a dozen women" Bhattarai interviewed for the story, so, obviously a broad swath of American women was duly captured here.
Bhattarai goes on to cite the many downsides of caring for your own children and nurturing a timeless bond that can never be duplicated:
Less money.
'There are huge implications for the women themselves,' she said. 'Their lifetime earnings will be lower, they will most likely come back to a job that does not pay the salary they were making when they left.'
The damage doesn't end with only money, but rather something progressives value even more: Social status.
It'll be harder for them to get back in, harder to move up the ladder to senior management positions because they've had this gap in employment.
I don't know how you can possibly compare something as mundane as watching your child take his or her first steps to something really important, like making it to Senior Vice President.
By the way, the economist Bhattarai quoted above? This is her:
Misty L. Heggeness is a proud Swiftie and an economist who studies the intersection of gender, poverty, inequality, and the high-skilled workforce.
And yes, she wrote a book, "Swiftynomics," which "uncovers the hidden contributions women make to the economy and ... challenges outdated assumptions about women's roles and shines a light on the often-overlooked productivity embedded in their everyday lives." She does this by writing a book about billionaire superstars.
Taylor Swift and Beyoncé aren't just pop megastars. They are working women, whose astounding accomplishments defy patriarchal norms.
Right, because I can't think of a single prior example of a female pop megastar.
Google Search Results
I wonder how many times patriarchal norms have to be defied before they aren't, you know, norms anymore.
In any case, buried at the bottom of the article there were several paragraphs focusing on one of the women she interviewed who chose to quit her fulfilling corporate job to spend time with her young children.
Emily Santoni left her position as a chief marketing officer at an energy consulting firm in Houston to stay home with her children, ages 1 and 3, this year.
'I worked hard, I had a great career, we were both making great money,' the 39-year-old said. 'But I was working so much, there were weeks when I saw my kids for maybe 30 minutes a day. Finally it was like, "Let's slow this down so I can be a present mother."'
And not a MAGA hat or #tradwife in sight!
My decision to leave my corporate role had nothing to do with politics or a movement telling women to stay home.
This quote sounds like a response to a question. She was also quoted in the article as saying that her job eliminating a two-day-a-week telework option did not play a large part in her decision. I imagine Bhattarai was prompting her for a reason that made sense to her. Santoni wasn't biting.
'It had everything to do with what success looks like for me right now,' Santoni said. 'I've worked relentlessly since I was young, and now I choose to give my best energy to my kids while they're little. For moms choosing to leave the workforce for this same reason, it's not weakness or submission — it's power.'
Yes, this was all buried in the article, the part most people don't get to, but maybe, just maybe, there is hope for The Washington Post.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
