Fast-Track Women and the “Choice” to Stay Home

Abstract

Increasing attention has been given to high-achieving women who appear to be leaving their careers in favor of staying home full-time to raise children. Some commentators interpret this trend as reflecting these women’s embrace of a “new traditionalism,” a rejection of feminist goals in favor of more traditional gender roles. Based on intensive interviews with forty-three women, the authors find that participants’ decisions to interrupt careers are highly conflicted and not grounded in a return to traditional roles. Although family concerns figure prominently, they are not the major reason behind most women’s decisions. Work-based factors play a primary role, with characteristics of husbands playing an important secondary role. The authors conclude that by virtue of their occupational status and class membership, professional women are caught in a double bind between the competing models of the ideal worker and ideal parent. The authors discuss the policy implications for the organization of work-family life.

Family Influences on the Career Life Cycle

“…This tends to be a predominantly female phenomenon, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of men opting out of successful careers in order to spend more time with their families (Cobb, 2006). In their study of female 'fast-track' managerial and professional employees who gave up their careers to stay home with their children, Stone and Lovejoy (2004) cited workplace inflexibility as a major factor prompting women to quit. Study participants spoke of the unavailability of reduced-hours options for high-level positions in their organizations, and reported that their choice was between working forty hours or more per week or quitting.…”

“…Of the female managers and professionals who participated in Stone and Lovejoy's (2004) research, 72% referred to the desire to spend more time with their children as a factor in their decision to quit. Three-quarters of these women left their jobs when their children were infants or toddlers.…”

The Voice of Trailing Women in the Decision to Relocate: Is it Really a Choice?

“…Stone and Lovejoy [46] suggested that the rhetoric of "choice" for women has been oversimplified into a dichotomy of staying at home or working. Their study revealed that in most cases, women did not feel that they were free to follow their personal preferences, but rather felt that it was impossible to perform well in both spheres if carried out at the same time, mainly due to inflexible workplace situation [47].…”

Birth spacing, human capital, and the motherhood penalty at midlife in the United States

“…From a productivity perspective, spacing children close together intensifies the early child-rearing period, which may make remaining attached to the labor force impossible, thereby hurting women's long-term economic growth. On the other hand, working parttime or shifting to the "mommy track" may halt women's career progress (Noonan and Corcoran 2004;Stone and Lovejoy 2004). Thus, if a longer birth interval means that women spend more time in part-time work, rather than returning to full-time work between births, the return to the labor market between children may be no more valuable than having two births close together and only returning to work (full-time) after the second child is born.…”