Well, not really. But The New York Times has found the Next New Motherhood Trend: "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood" proclaims a front-page story today.
While you might be tempted to write it off as yet another piece about women who can afford to "opt out," it is noteworthy for its focus on women who have not yet fully opted in:
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.
Writer Louise Story cites an e-mail survey of 138 Yale freshman and senior females. According to the Times, "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 women said their husbands would be staying home with the children, while two others said that depending on their careers, either they or their husbands would be the primary caregiver.
Many women cited their own mothers as influences on how they imagine their lives will be -- and 60 percent of the students surveyed at Yale said that their mothers did not work at all, or worked part-time or after their children started school. Story points out that "students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their [working] mothers as influences."
So despite the headline, little has changed. Choosing to stay at home is, of course, a choice that most women -- and men -- cannot afford to even consider. It's probably safe to assume that most of these Ivy League students grew up in well-to-do families, making it easier for them to imagine maintaining at least an upper middle-class lifestyle on one earner's salary.
But there are other problems with this type of story that I'd like to explore, starting with the reporting formula. Such stories about women opting out generally feature at least one comment noting how expectations from 30 years ago have not been realized. In this case, that role is filled by Cynthia E. Russert, an American history professor who has taught at Yale since 1967. Her quote:
"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 ... The women today are, in effect, turning realistic."
Then there's usually a comment or two about why women have not been able to exercise all their options. Here we have Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, who wisely observed:
"What does concern me 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."
And Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women's and gender studies at Yale, said:
"They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it ... Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.
"I really believed 25 years ago," Wexler added, "that this would be solved by now."
I'm willing to bet we'd be a lot further along in our discussions if the media focused half as much on the persistent obstacles to egalitarian child-rearing as it does on women who choose to stay at home. Why should it be left to feminists, academics and social scientists to probe why traditional gender roles remain unchanged?
The multi-part series (think big) I'm imagining would obviously cover issues such as the lack of affordable childcare and compare U.S. support for families against that of Western European countries. It would also investigate the broader social context, including countervailing forces such as the Christian right and the current political and social philosophy of the Bush administration.
And the series would included the voices of -- brace yourselves -- current fathers and future wannabe fathers (hey, it's my fantasy). Other than Yale's dean, Peter Salovey, no other male is quoted in the most recent Times story. Unfortunately, this is the norm.
In fact, this is the only input we have from male college students, and it comes second-hand:
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."
Other stories have shown how younger men want to play a larger role in raising their children. (Rebel Dad, by the way, does a great job of tracking this news). We need more media coverage of the economic, political and social factors standing in the way of those desires -- for working men and women -- and we need more coverage of family friendly work policies and initiatives.
Finally, we need to look at cultural attitudes about mothers and motherhood, and how those attitudes have shifted in the past 30 years vis a vismovies, television, advertising and literature.
It's not surprising, though, that students think stay-at-home moms are sexy. Babies appear in the media as the new celebrity accessory. In affluent communities, mommy-and-me activities have moved into spas and private clubs. In June, the New York Times reported on the proposed October opening of Citibabes, where members will "no longer have to decide between a bikini wax and baby ballet."
Today I received an e-mail pitching an interview with Katherine Stewart, author of the new novel Yoga Mamas, which may in fact be a terrific book, but check out the pitch:
What Is A Yoga Mama?
A new breed of mothers that prove you don't have to resign yourself to a lifetime of drudgery or stop wearing cute shoes just because you have a baby. They are mothers who have fun, who are not over-whelmed and frazzled, have a strong female support system and live a quality, less stressed, life.
Pregnant? Cool! Katherine Stewart tells us why motherhood is so hip right now! Katherine will update old ideas and misconception about being a mom (such as motherhood means being trapped behind the steering wheel of a mini-van wearing a "soccer mom" t-shirt)and share how you can be a Yoga Mom too!
Where do I sign up?
Oh, right. Need kid.
And a winning lottery ticket.
